Not entirely true, as various groups, if not the LNP or Labor, have pointed out benefits. However, we (we as in the 99% at least) are all going to face the consequences of business as usual.
3 Likes
Is anybody offering assurances that nobody will be worse off as a consequence of inaction?
And not combating Climate Change is without consequences or costs?
2 Likes
I don’t ever think CHOICE is non-political rather I think they are apolitical (ie they follow policy thus politics but not parties). They use whichever part of the parties is necessary to achieve the goals of CHOICE, this may mean as I noted before the lobbying of various parties to achieve the wanted outcome.
The politicizing of Climate Change (CC) acceptance (this is distinct from the effects of CC) is a tool used to make policy and party the reason for belief rather than accepting the science as a reason for belief. Politicians made it a political cause for acceptance or denial and this should not mean that an organisation should not fight for the science. CHOICE has a role to protect consumers and CC is affecting them and will continue to do so, thus CHOICE has a role.
Worse than this we have a lot of money being funneled into CC debate to submerge the science and focus on denying the CC problem. Infinite consumerism until they use up the profit making they can do.
Even the question of should we be expected to pay more or change our habits is loaded in favour of consumerism and denial of the problem. It’s not if or should we but rather it is must but how do we make the best outcome of those changes. How do we adjust to a new way of seeing consumption and lifestyle? Denialism seeks the status quo because that is the path to greatest short term gain, CC acceptance and the move to cutting use and emissions will be painful and could be made less so by proper policy. BEVs cost too much? Then support the industry to make them affordable, support the move to make panels etc available to all regardless of home ownership or not. Change legislation to make Renewable Energy mandatory on new buildings, change the way we use materials and build products to make them more recyclable, much of this requires legislative action and many other facets of our responses require laws to take away the reason to ignore and impose the reasons to take action.
Sitting back and not saying anything is akin to supporting no action.
5 Likes
The cost for doing nothing today is exactly that zero. There are no consequences today. That may not be what I believe, however a significant number of Australians have that view point.
Agreed, after a small allowance for those of us too old to still be around after 2040 or 2050.
The following might help illustrate some of the concerns others have and consequences.
ABC Science on YouTube
Want more science — plus health, environment, tech and more? Subscribe to our channel.
But although most respondents believed that climate change was happening, just 61 per cent said they thought humans were the cause.
This is dramatically out of sync with the scientific consensus on climate change.
However there remains a desire, less pain for a very large number of Australian consumers to keep things just as they are.
From the same report as previous, a clear point as to why those of us seeking greater action on climate change need to give due consideration to the views of the other Australian consumers.
While a minority of people were willing to make big sacrifices to see climate change tackled, Ms Huntley said there were many more for whom it’s not a top priority.
For instance, while 62 per cent of respondents said they would support a levy on fossil fuel companies to help transition to clean energies, that could change if jobs were lost or prices went up, she said.
1 Like
Please excuse the split reply.
Solutions need to encourage all to be part of the solution?
The pain needs to be shared?
No free lunch?
P.S.
@grahroll left out the need for the community to deliver realistic and acceptable solutions to changes in employment. It may be the toughest of them all. Perhaps a return to Australian made even if it is cheaper from overseas?
2 Likes
Since a lot of the damage going on on our planet is happening because of the things we buy and consume, I would say that climate change and environmental concerns in general, definitely fall into the Choice mandate. I do admit that I feel very strongly that we have a terrible problem on this planet because of human activity, so perhaps I am biased. I am also over listening to people still doubt the science in favour of no science, fiscally motivated propaganda.
7 Likes
Choice can be a leader in questioning the ways we live and what we have been led to believe we NEED eg cots and their safety, beds and how “good” they are, are all well and good but a much safer (no risk of getting stuck, falling, etc) and cheaper option would be to do without a cot and bed and get back to the floor. While I realise that many people would be horrified by the thought, our lack of movement is a huge contributor to most of the (physical) ills of Western society. Test the beds and cots by all means, but also ask why we need them in their current form. Little things such as using leaf tea instead of teabags would give us more movement, reduce waste and give us more options about strength of a cuppa. Test shampoos but tell consumers that SLS, the main ingredient in most shampoos, is an endocrine disruptor so not good for our health, let alone their impact on the environment and the cost of packaging, shipping, the plastic bottles etc. Another simple one is for consumers to look at the ingredients list on the shampoos and start wondering why one costs many dollars more than another although they have extremely similar ingredients. And lots more…
5 Likes
Hi all - Jess from the CHOICE campaign team here. Thanks all for the many insightful comments above - I have taken quite a bit away from this conversation already and you’ve given me and the team a lot to think about!
On CHOICE and activism.
As so many of you know, CHOICE has been advocating for consumers for 60 years now. Our founder, Ruby Hutchenson, was a trailblazer in this regard. If you’ve haven’t read her story before, I really encourage you to have a look here: choice.com.au/about-us/the-choice-story/who-was-ruby-hutchison
Since the early days, CHOICE has been able to achieve major wins and reforms by
- Putting pressure on Governments of all stripes to do better by consumers
- Working directly with a community of passionate consumers (you!) to raise awareness and keep up the pressure.
Two campaigns that come to mind are our recent win on financial advice reform, as well as our work to see through country of origin labelling.
There are indeed so many loaded words when it comes to describing advocacy! I think for me, the two terms that best describe CHOICE are: “fiercely independent” and “relentlessly pro-consumer”. I think whatever word we choose to use, we should all be proud of what reforms we’ve been able to achieve together.
On what role CHOICE should play in conversations about climate and consumers:
Many of you would have seen our recent campaign on bushfire definitions in general insurance contracts: https://action.choice.com.au/page/55064/petition/1
We launched this campaign after our experts found over 70% of home and contents policies have confusing, unfair or unclear “fire” definitions. All home insurance policies that CHOICE reviews offer cover for bushfires – but there is no standard definition of ‘fire’. With extreme weather becoming more common, we feel that standard definitions across all natural disasters are crucial in helping consumers navigate this confusing market.
Next week, we’ll be delivering this petition to the Treasurer, and asking for the government to support standard definitions (as they have done in the past with flood after the Queensland 2011 floods). So if you haven’t yet added your name, we’d greatly appreciate your support.
I think you’ve raised some great suggestions about what other work CHOICE can do to support consumers in a changing climate. Of course, we need to balance this with our existing advocacy priorities of pro-consumer reform to private health insurance, banking and finance, product safety and food labelling (just to name a few!) - but of course we need to be alive to what other markets and industries aren’t working for consumers in light of climate change. We’ll be thinking more about this over the coming months, so please stay tuned. I hope I’ll be able to provide an update later in 2020.
Until then, there are of course many groups who advocate on climate change specifically – one that some consumer defenders may resonate with is the Climate Council who provide authoritative, expert advice to the Australian public on climate change and solutions based on the most up-to-date science available. You can find their website here https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/
11 Likes
The article quotes the Trade Practices Act as 1975 when it was actually 1974.
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2010C00331
“The rapid take-up and success of the ACA in the 1960s were essential pre-conditions for the Whitlam government’s Trade Practices Act of 1975, a landmark piece of consumer protection legislation. Ruby retired from politics in 1971 and passed away in 1974, so sadly only ever saw the Trade Practices Act in its infancy.”
So perhaps she did actually see its introduction.
1 Like
Should the title of this topic change? As @draughtrider points out:
Activists is a loaded term. Choice: Consumer Advocates or Climate Denialists? would be a more accurate title in my eyes, but some might view it as loaded in the opposite direction. Consumer advocacy and climate denialism are mutually exclusive. The consumer risks are so well-established that any group claiming to represent consumers that failed to work for climate action would tacitly deny the science, thus earning the title denialist.
This forum has its denialists. The honest ones generally don’t last. Their posts end up deleted. That’s a pity, because they at least seem genuine. They tend to be disruptive, so I guess silencing them is best for the Community.
The more pernicious follow the Lomborg School; pretending to accept reality while working against action. Honest difference of opinion is one thing; that Lomborgian hypocrisy disgusts me. I bear in mind that Lomborg is a political scientist - deceit and manipulation are his stock-in-trade.
To answer the question posed by either the existing title or the proposed alternative, we need to know something about the community. I’ve started a new topic with a free-form survey that might provide some clarity.
https://choice.community/t/survey-choice-and-global-warming/19972
1 Like
Let’s not get hung up on terminology. Changing the title of this thread looks better and better.
Thanks for the reminder. There are as you suggest a number of great sites focused on this issue specifically.
In seeking to better understand what is important to Choice as an organisation and it’s members, I found the Board Charter
https://www.choice.com.au/-/media/469942c63404471cb97c7db189ee5646.ashx?la=en
And the Choice Annual Review
https://www.choice.com.au/-/media/3cbd8c1e742948b7a71a19ca5b3063ed.ashx?la=en
Excellent resources for understanding the priorities and focus of the organisation.
I recently posted concerning the findings of the Coronial Inquest into the DreamWorld thunder River Rapids Ride tragedy.
Whether on target my broader observations included
Choice is as you point out very active in advocating for better consumer outcomes. Many of the areas I’ve listed have seen change through advocacy from Choice and others.
It’s easy to add a couple of other examples to the list of areas of consumer concern where regulation and failures of systems have exposed consumers to risk.
The very recent XPT derailment in Victoria may be one more example. Failures yet to be investigated and the crew and passengers supported.
Choice has been on the front foot with advice and reviews and more with the rollout of solar PV and battery systems. There are some reports of problems with systems and installers. Choice will be on the front foot if what is essentially a self regulated industry starts to show consumer stress through substandard outcomes. (Potentially “Pink Batts on steroids” if the infrequent failures and fires become more common as systems age.)
It would seem Choice serves many important and demanding consumer needs. I’m satisfied that Choice does consider the environmental benefits of different products when they are readily assessable.
Consumers appear to be under stress in so many areas of everyday living. The broader and very real community concerns relating to Climate Change add to this stress. The stress affects all of us irrespective of differences in views. Is adding the additional stress of trying to resolve what is essentially a very difficult political debate around Climate Change into Choice likely to be productive. Providing the best unbiased advice on products and services should remain a priority.
1 Like
Is doing nothing really the alternative to advocating action? Isn’t business as usual the real alternative? Is the cost of that really zero?
Drought, bushfires, storms, floods, death and destruction notwithstanding.
Yes, taking action will not have immediate effects. Is that any excuse for refusing to take steps to reduce the likelihood of future repeats?
Is the issue political? If we deny the science, then maybe. If we deny the consumer impacts, then perhaps it isn’t a consumer issue.
So Choice shouldn’t campaign on things like product safety, food labelling, the financial industry …? Yet it does. How is advocacy on global warming any different?
Some are wont to charactrise anything but silence as activism (which is, by implication, a BAD thing). There’s certainly some enthusiasm for silencing Choice.
There clearly is not enough stress yet for our leaders to produce action. So yes more action is required. The alternative is for us to do nothing and that gives the crowd who advocate society should do nothing exactly what they want. If the remedy for that means more stress all round then so be it.
That is not necessarily the case though. You seem to assume that the stress generated by this topic is from talking about it, being aware of it and advocating - all actions. What if the stress is generated by inaction?
When I see my fields, garden and orchard and its animals and birds dying due to monster drought I feel stressed. When I see leaders dodging and weaving and sometimes advocating gross foolishness I am stressed. When I look at my grandchildren and contemplate the distinct possibility that the world I leave them will not be better as I had hoped but much worse I feel very stressed.
2 Likes
Where should Choice stand on global warming? That’s a tough question to answer. Choice is all about consumers, and we (Australians as well as other rich nations) need to be consuming a lot less in order to save our species.
So should Choice have an activist streak? I don’t know that it needs to - as long as it reports faithfully on the best products to use that will help the environment. While Choice currently reports on fat and sugar levels in foods, power consumption in electronics, security in online devices… is it possible to add the environmental impact of our consumption choices? If I purchase a vacuum cleaner from this manufacturer, do they have a return to recycle program? How long can I expect their product to last before it needs to be replaced? Does it contain any parts that are not recyclable? What happens to that battery once I have finished with the product?
There are a bunch of things Choice can consider that do not involve it becoming a climate activist. All of the issues listed above are part of consumer advocacy, and well within Choice’s current remit.
9 Likes
Agree with postulative - Choice to include environmental impact in consumer choices, rather than activism. I want to know that the Choice recommended product I buy is robust, reliable, recyclable, minimised environmental harm, resources, power etc and potentially will last a long time.
2 Likes
Misquoting to give an opposite impression of my actual viewpoint is your call.
For the record what I said in full was.
Stating what others are saying is part of understanding the greater problem, facing those of us seeking change.
I started the discussion, not on the premise of arguing for or against climate change.
I asked simply whether Choice should move from its current position of broad advocacy for consumers to being a leader through activism for action on climate change. Choice might be able to do more?
If that second option is taken by Choice it needs to be one made by the leadership of the organisation. How the board takes the membership along is why they are the board and have an executive to manage the organisation.
I’m broadly satisfied with how Choice as an organisation services my needs as a member. Choice can also contribute by assessing specific consumer needs to provide better environmental outcomes.
Perhaps the discussion that may help your cause @Drop_Bear should be addressed directly to the Board as an argument for change at their level.
Making an argument about whether what I have observed, said or questioned is unlikely to be as productive. That’s simply because I know what I have done towards combating climate change, and what I can do next.
I have no desire to be drawn into a tit for tat. It is however polite to accept that there are other view points. Failure to take them on board probably cost labour an opportunity to now be in Government in Canberra. No one will get enough support for Climate Change action when loss of today’s employment and economic order is not directly addressed. That is a simple political reality where I live and know best. If Choice wants to lead on Climate action that would need to be something Choice can directly answer. For many Choice members who live in the big cities it is hardly an immediate concern. That makes arguing for quite drastic changes low risk from their viewpoint. If I sound political, it is because the fundamental issues facing all of us with action on climate change are partisan and politically driven. The ABC Insiders on Sunday 23rd Feb did a good job of looking at exactly these concerns.
Reality is that slightly more Australians put the economy ahead of climate change as a priority. While a majority of Australians support action on climate change they are divided between those who want to spend more and those who only want action as far as it does not cost any more. The ABC, ANU and recent survey results are frequently linked in our posts.
Not at all.
Simply that the membership and contributors to the discussion will ultimately align according to political leanings and personal belief.
Science vs Beliefs.
Neither win because because they exist in two different frames of reference.
The way forward in other similar circumstances can be to step into the world of the other. Easier said than done. It wasn’t science that demonstrated the world was round to a largely non scientific community. It was Magellan and some rich buggers who believed it could be done by sailing around the world. He may have had some science on his side. A scientific proof by one measure. A demonstration of faith by another. Some of our greatest achievements have started with beliefs.
For those that need to do more:
Engaging with the 50,000+ coal miners in Aust, the 50,000+ directly employed in the supporting roles (train drivers to machinery spare parts staff), and the approx 200,000 indirectly employed retail and service roles that attach to their communities might be a good place to start.
Add the immediate and extended families of those 300,000 employees and it is easy to understand just how many votes and real life Choice members are likely impacted by future changes to one climate pinch point, coal mining. If we need to talk about the impacts of Climate Change on consumers and adopt the broad idea every one is a consumer and everyone is affected by Climate Change. Why brush past these Aussies?
Regardless of how they respond to the science, fear of loosing your job, or career or having to move town, or your community being turned into a backwater is very real. You only need to look to Newcastle to observe how big a hit it took with the BHP going and thousands of front line jobs going. Is this the discussion Choice needs to have and what should Choice advocate?
There is a tendency for that to happen, however these positions are not immutable. Those on the extremes are less likely to change (but it isn’t impossible given time) those in the middle are changing, if only from apathy to understanding and commitment.
And there we go back down the post-modern rabbithole that there is no objective reality and that each opinion is a valid as any other. Well no, each opinion on concrete issues is as valid as the quality of the evidence and reasoning behind it. I don’t expect the anti-science extremists to suddenly see reason, I do expect them to be shown as a misguided minority who can be safely ignored though.
Oh what shame that I advocate such a horrid hurtful thing! I manage that because this isn’t theology, we are not debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin we are trying to avoid a vast tragedy. If that means some feelings are hurt when people being told they are spouting rubbish I will accept that I helped to cause that hurt.
The industries that must change radically and their employees deserve support and should not bear an excessive share of the costs individually or collectively. It may surprise you to find that not all coal miners are deniers and even if they were they should not be abandoned. Choice and us should advocate for transition plans for them.
1 Like
Agreed
Delivering support for the changes before rather than after the event should also be the best way to minimise the economic impact on all of us. Although our five speeds of internet delivered at the lowest cost demonstrates government cannot always be relied upon to treat all equally. It will likely need as you suggest,
It is also much broader than just coal miners who will need new employment. And having worked on and off in the industry for the best part of 35years, I also know.
A rabbit hole if you like. There are plenty of rabbits. I don’t put them into the climate deniers bucket. Many of us struggle to understand the science and it comes down to whose interpretation you believe most on the day.
