I also agree as well.
If Choice starts becoming a issue based activist organisation, it would set a precedent for Choice to also take on any other trending/emerging issues that may come into their foray or nominated by a member(s). This could include any social, personal, environmental or economic issues, to which there are scores currently in the public domain. This is possibly a place where no Choice member really wants Choice to end up being.
Sorry, but Magellan was way behind the times. The ancient Greeks and Egyptians had already figured that the Earth was round - one of them even calculated its size to within a percentage or two.
Uh - no.
Of course, that includes fly-in-fly-out (FIFO) workers, that many communities would rather not have at all - and those coal miners are subsidised by the taxpayer!
In the meantime, Germany is phasing out coal mining quite successfully.
Industries change over time - old ones fall, new ones rise. Do we still need the number of hostlers that was employed at the beginning of the twentieth century? Change is inevitable; how we deal with it determines whether we and our planet sink or swim (or dog paddle through flooded coastal cities).
Great summary, and very well put by others as well - CHOICE is a consumer advocate (not ‘activist’, CHOICE actually takes meaningful action).
I’d prefer to see a test on ladders than see the organisation focussed single-handedly trying to change the world - what CHOICE does needs to benefit the consumer at the coal-face 
Or addressing the points raised regardless of tactical disclaimer;
or that’s the way the forum software formats quotes.
Your reaction is unfortunate. If calculated to intimidate, it’s failed.
Do the dog whistle terms of the title and the bias exposed in the opening post substantiate that assertion? Climate change is “this product” that we are “being sold” - really?
As tacitly conceded, global warming is a consumer issue. Perhaps at least part of a consumer advocate’s responsibility involves defending consumers against misinformation that distorts community perceptions.
Has that been suggested somewhere? It sounds a silly as suggesting that Choice test only baby strollers. The remit is broader than that.
Misleading terminology in the topic title notwithstanding, the question is one of degree, not totality.
Clearly. ‘one of degree’ indeed …
Those who are asking for greater action and those that are opposed to greater action are marketing to their respective positions. Is that what you are saying?
I’ve always thought there ways more than enough room in the Community to listen to the alternate points of view.
What is the way forward?
As others have already said,
We can all do more. I’m satisfied Choice is doing what needs to be done in looking after our immediate needs as consumers.
We have recently had a case where it was argued that the title of a thread prejudiced the outcome. This one may be a better example for two reasons.
“Activist” can be (and is today) used as a pejorative to put down somebody you disagree with. The court case goes against you - it was an activist judge. Shock Jocks use Activist to dog-whistle Ratbag, Communist or Irresponsible Children. Governments try to make laws to more easily prosecute Activists.
Why is this a binary choice? On the one hand there is sticking to your knitting and being silent. Doing that is actually helping the anti climate change lobby who prize inaction. On the other hand is drawing excessive resources away from the core business of consumer protection through providing information and support in regard to specific products and consumer rights.
Is there no way for Choice to make it plain where they stand and avoid giving comfort to the do nothing crowd while still pursuing its primary role? I wouldn’t think that was too hard. Isn’t having a decent world to live on a consumer right that can have a little bit of time and effort along with ladder safety and return policies?
In the topic that spawned this one, I’ve posted only news on “climate change” that I consider has consumer relevance. None of the posts referenced in the O.P. could rationally be interpreted as seeking “greater action” from Choice. The one on Stegall’s bill might be said to come close, but it’s about the government, not Choice. Is this topic a manifestation of fear that something might be done to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
The question is not the simple binary presented in the title. On consumer issues, Choice advocates, informs and leads. If it’s to be silent on this consumer issue and not others, then why so? If it’s to follow on this consumer issue while leading on others, then why so? If it’s to advocate on other consumer issues and not this, then why so?
Some of us see responsibilities beyond the self and the short-term. Are all consumer issues “immediate”?
Consumer Defenders vs activism? Both suggest action, and doubtless invite a landing somewhere in between. There are alternate view points in the public and government that certainly argue contrary. My decision to choose boundaries and keep the title short rather than use a more open question. In hindsight, a follow on might have read (Is Choice doing enough, can Choice do more to support action on Climate Change and are there risks to Choice as an organisation if it does more.)
How we or others might use posts has been subject of a separate discussion. It has hopefully left this topic to consider independently
From the response in this discussion topic I have a better understanding of the concerns and priorities of some of the Choice Community. Whether there is more, Choice as an organisation can contribute, hopefully there is an ongoing interest and desire for positive change.
P.S.
Do “immediate needs of the consumer” include providing for the future? Some of us do, some of us don’t.
My lack of grasp of the nuances of the English language, apologies.
Which is about the only rational question raised by this topic. Otherwise, the more you say, the less sense I get.
So what more could Choice do? I don’t have a firm handle on what it does now, so I’ll leave the answer to others.
I found this useful, concerning the responses to this topic.
Sorry, but I do all my resonating in my private lab - it saves embarrassment for all concerned.
Climate science should not be politics - just the best info we can act upon.
Australia is ‘internationally weird’ because, unlike Europe (eg, Germany), we’re not guided by the science at the (Federal) political level. Oddly, at the Federal level and re coronavirus, the Feds are willing to be guided by the science. Go figure.
BUT!
Consumers such as myself and others do choose to have ‘environmental issues underlying’ - including matters as now-mainstream energy-rating, water-rating, etc - as go/no-go in their own consumer CHOICE.
Choice is about facts, not politics.
And Choice is a consequence of the original consumer affairs guru, Ralph Nader
And his expose of the Unsafe at Any Speed Chevrolet (General Motors) Covair led to some dirty politics by GM.
Noting how Choice - as consumer advocates - have influenced governments on various issues in the past - all facts/science-based - to ‘do nothing’ is equally as political a choice as even something as mild as ‘include in background info for your final product choice’.
So - I’m not suggesting Choice become a Climate Activist organisation; but go with the flow being led (in the background) by insurance actuaries and note things like food miles, microplastics, greenhouse gas emissions in manufacture or decommission.
This is a perfectly valid informing-of-consumers ‘thing’ for Choice, almost to the point of ‘why are we discussing this?’
The Commonwealth government (politicans) isn’t now making decisions in relation to the coronavirus, it is now the responsibility of the Chief Medical Officer (CMO). Australia is one of the few countries which removes decision making from politicans under an epidemic or pandemic…to ensure that decision made are based on best expert opinion, decisions are made quickly and decisions are in the best interest of Australia permanent residents health.
Even the government has to ask the CMO …like on the weekend the government (Greg Hunt MP) asked the CMO to review current status of movements from Italy in light of the outbreak in northern Italy. The government now can’t make such decisions and must leave it up to the CMO. The CMO uses a panel of experts, advice from the WHO to determine what is in the best interests of all permanent Australia residents.
It would be interesting if say the Chief Scientific Officer was granted such powers for things like climate change…but I suspect it will never happen as the impacts of such decisions may be seen far broader than just health protection.
Thanks, phb/Food-Champion,
I was not aware of this (CMO powers, following epidemic).
I knew it could apply to Chief Fire Officers under some circumstances and within certain limitations.
Such a difference there is, real-doctors/real-PHDs versus spin-doctors!
A Chief Science Officer to address climate change… what a beautiful idea!! Sigh.
The whole planet needs guidance at that level.
This is something I have actually done a little day-dreaming about. Government started at the level of the clan or tribe - you had family members that said how things would be. Then we had city-states, moved to empires and back to city-states, then to nations.
All of these changes in the form of government have come about for a reason - whether it is to improve individual chances of survival or to be able to manage the kind of complexity and relationships that nations deal with in the modern world.
The trouble with national government is that it cannot solve international problems. We have a United Nations, but it was hamstrung by design and the only current superpower refuses to acknowledge basic international law. So how exactly do we solve international problems (other than ‘experts’ behind closed doors negotiating based upon who knows what preferred outcome they are seeking and for whom)?
We already see the problem in ‘free’ ‘trade’ deals, and climate ‘deals’ seem to be in the same kind of bargaining arena where the average person has zero say in the outcome. In this kind of environment, an international, elected government that is responsible for those things that affect more than one nation (trade, dams, climate etc.) seems to make some sense. The European Union has an elected parliament; why does the world not have something similar?
Of course, such an arrangement would ruin existing power blocs and could not possibly be tolerated.
You speak much sad truth…
We’re in need of something like a Captain of Spaceship Earth, with a title of something like Ecologist in Chief.
My background is ecology. I had a conversation with an economist one time - talking about long-term plans. I asked what the period for a long-term economic plan was. “Five years”.
“Oh. In ecology, 500 years is short-term. In fact - the fastest recovering environment - rainforest - you’re really looking at 800 years for ‘return to prior state’, and that’s just after logging, not clearing.”
Then the conversation got ‘awkward’.
Somehow this guy - who could get his mind around some really beautiful mathematics - couldn’t grasp even that economics ultimately dangled off ecology, not the other way around.
I admit to feeling a bit defeated by ‘the New Endarkenment’.
Something to consider with product testing etc is that rising heat levels, and general reduction in the quality of manufactured goods, has led to/is leading to shorter lifespans of products. Product testing should, perhaps, have an added published category of efficient operating temperatures and product efficiency at higher temperatures.
The 2019 Australian Election said NO in no uncertain terms. There is the correct answer to the question.
/edit 3 or maybe 4(?) Discourse is especially ‘randy’ this morning as it treats ongoing edits in the first minute as individual changes. A bug that comes and goes. /
Our elections, as are those in so many countries are decided by very few electorates, and then with small margins, sometimes under 1%.
Voters unfortunately are rarely single issue voters. They see a basket of issues and a basket of pollies and make their choices of the overall pictures. I doubt there was anything ‘uncertain’ related to this topic, other than it is not the absolute #1 issue for many voters. Did I miss something else?
Re jobs and so on, issues of opportunities related to addressing climate change from new products, agriculture, social service issues, to personal and national security were avoided in the campaigns with history dominating so did the people make rational choices, or make choices from partisan marketing?
