The next four years could be like a bad episode of ‘Mad Men.’

I’ll admit it: prior to attending the Democratic National Convention earlier this month, I knew very little about what was at stake for women’s health this election season. Sure, I had heard rumblings about Republican Sen. Todd Akin’s legitimate rape blunder, rolled my eyes when hearing about Republican Rep. Mike Callton’s squeamishness over the v-word, and laughed at the ridiculous conservative notion that women can technically become pregnant two weeks before even doing the deed.

But by the end of DNC, it was very clear that the rights I have taken for granted my whole life are at risk. November 6 doesn’t just present a choice between Obama-Biden and Romney-Ryan. It presents a choice about women’s rights, particularly those involving our health.

Throughout the three-day convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, women took center stage, both figuratively and literally. During the televised speeches at the Time Warner Arena, nearly every major speaker forcefully advocated for women’s rights, to raucous applause. Down the street, enthusiastic cheers from the over-capacity Women’s Caucus meetings echoed through the Charlotte Convention Center. There were panel discussions and workshops, mixers and meetings. On the city streets, pink-shirted Planned Parenthood volunteers, male and female, distributed condoms that read: “Protect Yourself from Romney & Ryan.”

“I never thought I’d see a week when men and women hit the stage time after time and talked about women’s issues,” said Tina Tchen, Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, at a Women’s Caucus meeting on the last day of the convention. The crowd went wild.

In 2012, as in 2008, women voters will decide this election. Women make up approximately 51 percent of the nation’s electorate, reports CNN. Plus, we vote in greater numbers than men. In 2008, 65.7 percent of women turned out to the polls, compared with 61.5 percent of men, says USA Today.

That still leaves more than one-third of women who don’t vote. With so much at stake, that’s simply unacceptable. Here are some of the most resounding women’s health battle cries from the DNC, which will hopefully convince those undecided few of the need to stand up and vote.

“We can’t see a reversal of Roe v. Wade.”

The historic piece of pro-choice legislation has set the tone for the abortion debate in America since 1973. But if recent Republican-led initiatives are any indication, this may not always be the case.

The official GOP platform states that “the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed” and supports a strict ban on abortion, even in cases of rape, incest, and when the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother. According to The Guardian, a staggering number of Republican-led state initiatives have attempted to further restrict abortion rights over the past year. Ohio’s “Heartbeat Bill,” for instance, would ban abortion at as early as five weeks, while Mississippi’s “Personhood” initiative would outlaw abortion, the morning-after pill, hormonal contraception like the pill and the IUD, and even in vitro fertilization.

Such attempts to revoke a woman’s right to choose aren’t just archaic and regressive – they’re downright scary. “It’s like we woke up in a bad episode of Mad Men,” said Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards on night two of the convention.

“Birth control decisions should be left to women, not to the government or their employers.”

President Obama’s Affordable Care Act makes it mandatory for health insurance providers to cover all forms of birth control, without co-pays or deductibles. Previously, birth control coverage was a decision made by state agencies or individual employers.

In comparison, Republican efforts to shut down Planned Parenthood and abolish sex education are aiming to restrict information and access to basic reproductive health services.

Unsurprisingly, men are at the helm of these efforts. In a Republican hearing on contraception earlier this year, not a single woman was included on the panel. The Democrats, who were allowed one witness, chose to present student activist Sandra Fluke. She was dismissed for being “unqualified,” then famously called a slut and prostitute by conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh. Politicians across party lines, including President Obama, sprung to Fluke’s defense. Romney was notably silent.

“During this campaign, we’ve heard about the two profoundly different futures that could await women – and how one of those futures looks like an offensive, obsolete relic of our past,” Fluke said on day two of the convention. “Warnings of that future are not distractions. They’re not imagined. That future could be real.” 

Richards echoed that notion at a Women’s Caucus meeting. “This is 2012 and we are still actually arguing over whether women should have the right to birth control in America. That is absolutely unbelievable.” She shared a story of meeting older women who had participated in the women’s rights movement while on the campaign trail. “They carried signs that said: ‘I can’t believe I have to fight this shit again.’”

“Being a woman is no longer a pre-existing condition.”

Before the Affordable Care Act, health insurance companies could deny health coverage to women because of “pre-existing conditions” like having breast cancer, being pregnant, or surviving domestic violence, according to Slate. Insurance companies were also able to drop women’s coverage due to pregnancy or sickness, and charge women more for coverage solely because of gender.

“Under Obamacare, insurance companies can no longer discriminate against women,” said Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, on the first night of the convention.

 Before, some wouldn’t cover women’s most basic needs, like contraception and maternity care, but would still charge us up to 50 percent more than men—for a worse plan. They said women who had C-sections or survived breast cancer or even domestic violence had “pre-existing conditions” and would deny them coverage. But this president made it illegal to discriminate against women and ended the practice of insurance companies charging women higher premiums than men for the same coverage. This president ensured women’s free access to preventive services like breast cancer screenings. Being a mother is no longer a liability, and being a woman is no longer a pre-existing condition! That’s what change looks like.

“We need a president who respects women.”

Many are familiar with the famous Ms. Magazine cover featuring a Photoshopped President Obama wearing a t-shirt that reads: “This Is What a Feminist Looks Like.” Judging from actions and remarks made over the past several months, it’s obvious that his opponents have a long way to go.

Sebelius hit the nail on the head when she voiced her observations on the Republican National Convention.

I must say I wouldn’t have known it unless they told me over and over again that they love women. That’s what they said: ‘We love women.’ That their mothers were women, that they’re married to women, their sisters are women. But if you watch what they do, they don’t like women very much, they don’t respect women very much and they’re not looking out for us very much.

According to Fluke, “that’s not the America we should be.”

We’ve also seen another future we could choose. First of all, we’d have the right to choose. It’s an America in which no one can charge us more than men for the exact same health insurance; in which no one can deny us affordable access to the cancer screenings that could save our lives; in which we decide when to start our families. An America in which our president, when he hears a young woman has been verbally attacked, thinks of his daughters—not his delegates or donors—and stands with all women.

Again, the crowd – male and female – went wild.

Election Day is November 6. Click here to learn how you can register to vote.

Images: Jessica Marati

The post DNC Dispatch: What’s At Stake For Women’s Health This Election Season appeared first on EcoSalon.

VideoIf you can’t say it, don’t legislate it.

As the War on Women rages on, anti-woman forces – primarily a cadre of ultra-conservative men – continue to beef up their offensive troops. They now have Paul Ryan “a no abortions ever” kind of guy, teaming up with Mitt “I’ve always been pro-life” Romney, and together, they’ve created a party platform that represents the biggest threat to Roe v Wade we’ve seen thus far.

New to the frontline, we’ve been introduced to the rogue soldier, Representative Todd Akin, a Missouri candidate for the U.S. Senate. In a recent interview, Rep. Akin was seen munching on a tasty foot in his mouth as he expressed his belief that in most cases of “legitimate” rape, “the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down,” thereby preventing pregnancy. Sadly, he isn’t the only politician who actually believes this absurd theory, nor does he stand alone in his justification for excluding rape-induced pregnancies in legislation that would restrict abortion funding.

Though our battles have escalated in the 2012 presidential campaign, women have long been besieged by fundamentalist religious groups, a male-dominated government, and society at large. It wasn’t until the 19^th Amendment was ratified in 1920, that women were granted the right to vote. Finally, we were allowed to raise our political voices, even if we would not be spared continuing efforts to silence us. We’re now all too aware that a strong declaration of opinion can lead to consequences. The duality of our political system was clearly exposed when Michigan’s State Rep. Lisa Brown, was censured for using the word “vagina” during a debate on abortion rights. Politicizing the word “vagina” helped mobilize many of us who had grown a little too accustomed to minding our manners.

If you can say it, display it.

Women have continued to say “vagina.”

Some even seek to destigmatize other descriptive terms for female genitalia, speaking – what may still be to many – the unspeakable. Others, the more demonstrative among us, are showing their vaginas (or vaginae…) to the world in a no-skirt-lifting fashion, through various forms of artistic expression. Vagina art may not be a new concept, but it is a window to society’s changing regard for women throughout history – from divine worship to oppression and repression.

Instead of conforming to expectations of “good girl” behavior, we’re seeing an emergence of newly empowered and emboldened women who have set up their easels, raided granny’s baskets of crochet hooks, knitting needles, embroidery kits, and hauled the sewing machines down from the attic. The results, as seen in the examples we’ve collected, evoke a broad range of emotions. Laughter. Anger. Sadness. Pride. Each creative effort celebrates the artistry of the individual as well as our collective identity. All have been inspired by “the sacred source of life” –the vagina.

Slideshow Music Courtesy JSP Records “Mama Don’t Allow It” by Julia Lee & Her Boyfriends; Images: Not Your Average Hooker, Hypgnosis, Shine Maverick Jewelry, Hypgnosis, Johnny B Wilde,  Expired Goods, Scarlet Tentacle, Purple Hippo Stitches, I Wear Party Hats, spidercamp, Irma Diaz/SourOctopus, TheVaginaZine, The Tie Dye Bohemian, Alex Florschutz, Adrien Art, Tina Casebeer/wikit626, ©Carrie Reichardt, Alex Florschutz, Woman In Bloom, thepixelrat, The Voting Box , VJazzle, Bridesmaids, Wedding Dress, Protest/CODEPINK, ©Ursula Kölle, Cupcakes, Body Parts Poster, Pink Flannel by Daria, Graffiti, Stenciled Tees/#waronwomen, ampule, the moss girl, ©Lydia Shalanko, Protest/CODEPINK, Scarlet Tentacle, Pochos Cosas, Vulva Love Lovely, Sinful Soap Favors, Family Tree Glass, Delicious Accessories

The post Women Launch an Artful Counter-Offense on the Vagina Battlefront appeared first on EcoSalon.

Your graphical guide to Election 2012.

With the proliferation of news media and the punditry that comes from anyone with a soapbox (or Twitter handle) it can be difficult to wrap your head around the major issues at stake this election season. That’s why we’ve brought you this collection of politically-themed infographics, which explore everything from candidate tax proposals to voter suppression to social media rankings to merchandise statistics. Rumor has it that t-shirt sales are a key election result indicator…

Navigating Political Terminology in an Election Year: study up on your political jargon with this handy (and hilarious) multiple choice guide.

U.S. Presidential Election 2012: a month-by-month look at election season, courtesy of Al Jazeera.

The Digital Campaign Landscape: it’s looking to be the most expensive campaign season in history, and millions of that moolah is going into online advertising.

The Incredible Shrinking Cities: a historical look at the rise and fall of hot-button political issues; note how words like “cities” and “urban” have slowly disappeared into the mix.

Presidential Candidates and Their Tax Proposals: the tax experts at H&R Block explore how each candidate plans to address the issue of taxes.

A Closer Look at the 2012 GOP Candidates: if you care for a closer glance at Mitt, Newt, Ron, and Rick, here’s your chance.

Election 2012 Social Media Rankings: see how a candidate’s clout translates to Klout in the social media world.

The Facts About Voter Suppression: according to the ACLU, there has been more state legislation aimed at suppressing the vote, particularly for minority voters.

The Social Campaign: a visualization of how social media’s influence on elections has changed between 2008 and 2012.

Political Merch Poll 2012: yeah, there’s foreign policy and gay marriage, but let’s explore the real issues: t-shirt sales.

ALSO CHECK OUT:

10 Earth Day Infographics

10 Food Infographics That Have Us Consciously Consuming

10 Fashion Infographics to Give Us a New Style Sense

Image: DonkeyHotey

The post 10 Political Infographics on Election 2012 appeared first on EcoSalon.

A round-up of what we’re reading right now. 

Politicians are duking it out for the “woman vote” this election season. Since when did the entire female gender constitute a special interest group? [via The Daily Muse]

If you’re not so keen on Mother’s Day bouquets after reading our investigative piece on the flower trade, try your hand at a DIY terrarium instead. [via Casa Sugar]

Bamboo bikes: a low-cost solution to the world’s transportation problems? [via Mashable]

How fair trade fashion label Afia embraces the maxim “form follows action” with their work in Ghana. [via HAND/EYE Magazine]

Kale… quinoa… avocado… this college chef speaks our language. [via Small Kitchen College]

Artisanal craft has gone mainstream, but has it lost its meaning? An ethical fashion columnist investigates with a case study of the “Made In Italy” label. [via GOOD]

Image: store.obama.com

The post Link Love: Transportation and Terrariums appeared first on EcoSalon.

A place where everything is something.

Potential-president Romney’s onto something, and it’s not just his embrace of the “corporate personhood” concept championed and re-championed by the U.S. Supreme Court. If a corporation can be a person, like Romney says, then so can a host of other non-people people, too.

Weather. How many times do you hear some knuckle-headed weather people say, “This weather stinks,” or, “I hate the rain?” It’s pure discrimination frankly. Who decided that Old Man Winter was bad and that Aestas, Goddess of Summer, was good? It sounds a lot like the guys who’ve determined that Mexicans are bad and Anglos are good. And we can’t stand for that, can we? We need anti-discrimination-in-meteorology legislation, ASAP.

Fire. You know what the height of injustice is? The ongoing persecution of arsonists. We all know that it’s the fire that actually burns down the building, not the mere pawn who ignited it. If someone as mainstream as Ron Howard can understand this (and then make a B/B-minus movie about it), then we have to accept it. It’s simple logic, really: we blame the corporation for redistributing wealth from poorer to richer, not the fat cats who run the corporation! When a corporation implodes, you don’t punish the man at the helm; you give him a bonus and thank him for a great year. When you catch an arsonist, you give him a cup of cocoa and a warm blanket; the hero just survived a fire attack!

Traffic. There are all kinds of traffic these days – foot traffic, web traffic, drug traffic – and we should see this diversity as a sign of traffic’s inherent humanity. Imagine the accountability you’d inject into state departments of transportation if you were able to sue traffic for making you late and torpedoing your productivity. You’d see a flood of funding into public transportation, just so that the state could avoid costly lawsuits! Corporate personhood allows one to sue a corporation; gridlock personhood lets you take it to the streets.

Electronics. This personalization serves as a kind of amnesty for slow-running computers, pixilated cable boxes, and skipping portable audio players. Sure, it feels nice to throw a malfunctioning printer out the window, but isn’t that being a little harsh on a single, insignificant particle that constitutes but one tiny fragment of the electromagnetic web that encompasses us all? Just as it’s not your fault when your laptop runs a little raggedly after you’ve dropped it on the floor, it’s also not the laptop’s fault that it’s beholden to a unwieldy technological entity – i.e., electronics – that can’t evolve to the point where being dropped on the floor has no deleterious effects on functionality at all. After all, many animals can survive being dropped on the floor; it’s about time our technology caught up.

War. With gods like Ares, Woden, and Huitzilopochtli, the ancients were on the right track here. I mean, these days, what are those damn peace-niks actually protesting? A fusillade of bullets? The chemical commingling of sulfur, charcoal, and saltpetre? How could any chemistry buff hope to get behind a movement that disdains a classic oxidation-reduction chemical reaction? Redox makes the world go round! We definitely need a lightning rod here. But for our purposes, instead of having a war god, it’s much more practical to invest in a war person. We were close before; perhaps No. 43 is worth trotting out for a second encore?

Foods. We already do this with liquor and ice cream. “Jose Cuervo really kicked my ass last night,” you say; or “I have a date with Ben & Jerry tonight.” Foodies love to talk about the “character” of cheese, or wine, or coffee, but what if they were characters in and of themselves? Imagine the spate of excuses that would open up: “I can’t go to your three-hour a capella jam; I already made plans with [Monterrey] Jack.” Or: “I’d love to watch the Pawn Stars marathon with you, baby, but my Boy[Ardee] friend is coming over.” Sure, sharper minds may call you a cannibal, but, then, they’ve probably never spent a solid night drinkin’ and gamblin’ with the Man in Black himself, Cash[ew nuts].

Image: Mittromneys

The post In Defense of Non-Human Humanity appeared first on EcoSalon.

So the joke goes that there’s a guy stranded on the roof of his house. Flood waters are rising and he’s praying to God for help. A couple of kids come by in a canoe and say, “Hey Mister! Jump in!” Preoccupied with prayer, he ignores them and they paddle away. Soon the water level is higher and the local sheriff comes by in a dinghy, “Get in, pal! It’s gonna get worse!” The man says, “Please, officer, not now, I must focus on the Lord!” Before long the waterline breaks over the roof of the house and a helicopter comes by, dangling a rope ladder. “Climb up!,” the pilot shouts above the roar of his engine. With the water raging and chopper wind blowing fiercely around him, the man screams, “Leave me! The Lord will save me!” Finally, the flood overcomes the man. As he’s being swept to his doom he looks to sky and asks, “Oh Lord, why have you left me to die?!” “Left you to die?!,” booms the Almighty, “I sent you a canoe, a dinghy and a helicopter, you idiot!”

I couldn’t help but think of this joke when I heard the infamous and honorable Representative from Illinois, John Shimkus (who is currently seeking the chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce panel in the next Congress), tell us that we don’t have to worry about global warming. Only God, says Shimkus, can destroy this earth, not man, and after all, He made a deal with Noah not to flood us out any more. I feel like shaking this guy and saying, “your Guy’s sending you data and science and smart people, you moron! He’s speaking to you and he’s saying: ‘Save thyself!'”

The War on Science is on and some people are telling us that He/She/It doesn’t believe in global warming and neither should you. By way of background, here’s a right-on quote from a blogger on About.com: “One of the principle driving forces behind all this [science] denial is a desire to get around the conclusions of science when they conflict with some preferred ideology – political, economic, religious, whatever.”

The political and economic issues behind climate change denial seem clear. As my father used to say, it’s always about two things: money and dollars. Corporate polluters have a record of funding efforts to portray good science as bad, promoting the notion of “science impotence” (portraying science as a  failure based on the fact that certain phenomena remain “unexplained”), and of course funding the campaigns of science deniers (take a guess where BP put its money this last election cycle). But what’s with the religious attacks? I mean, if you’re looking for something apocalyptic, global warming experts are offering up some crash and burn on a silver platter.

Of course there’s a thesis to be written here and we can go back to Descartes gumming up Church works with his thinking therefore am-ing, and then, of course, there’s our man Darwin who really queered the deal. But while portraying evolution as a theory as opposed to fact might be harmless enough (if ignorance can ever be harmless), denying changes in the weather puts people at risk. I don’t want to question Rep. Shimkus’ sincerity of motives; let’s not presume that his beliefs are really a front for corporate-backed efforts to derail climate change legislation. But his (and other policymakers‘) anti-science stance is dangerous and is based on antiquated thinking that precludes the coexistence of science and biblical creationism, something our greatest theologians would find ignorant, at best.

The truth is, there’s plenty of room for theology to exist alongside science and even support its conclusions as perhaps information coming straight from God’s workshop – tools “delivered” to us so that we might better love and protect ourselves and our neighbors. Whether or not one believes in creationism as the genesis of life, analysis of facts on the ground is just that – and a method to help preserve that life, wherever it comes from. Who knows? Maybe, just maybe, alternative energy technology is a gift from, well, just ask the folks at the Evangelical Climate Initiative.

You know, whatever one believes (or doesn’t believe), it’s important to have enough sense to come in out of the rain. You might even consider such a logical maneuver as taking refuge in God’s house. In any case, most of us can agree to this: finding a port in a storm beats going down with the ship.

Image: radiant guy

The post On Global Warming: If There Is One, He, She or It Is on Our Side appeared first on EcoSalon.

As the dust (and political garbage) of the election settles, it’s time to take a breath of clean air, regroup and see the fear for what it was. Hyperbole, right? Scare tactics from The Left. Doomsday predictions if polluter-sponsored climate deniers won the day. Yes. It’s going to be fine. Just breathe.

Cough.

Okay, so it wasn’t hyberbole. What happened in last week’s elections was a serious body blow to the environmental movement and it’s going to be all we can to do to weather the anti-science storm that’s about to go down. Know this: Half of the new congressmen deny climate change. And they’re arriving in D.C. on a wave of cash supplied by some of the world’s most egregious corporate polluters. Tying ourselves to mast isn’t going to cut it. Make no mistake. These people want to turn the environmental protection clock backward.

This is why I got all excited the other day when I read a story in the Los Angeles Times saying that “faced with rising political attacks,” the non-partisan American Geophysical Union (AGU) – the world’s largest, not-for-profit, professional society of Earth and space scientists, with more than 58,000 members in over 135 countries – “plans to announce that 700 climate scientists have agreed to speak out as experts on questions about global warming and the role of man-made air pollution.”

Consider the milquetoast approach to taking it to the streets that’s gone down since Al Gore did his heavy lifting back in 2006 (with his powerful documentary, An Inconvenient Truth and subsequent Nobel Peace Prize). And remember the ugliness of the media rollover on Climategate, and then its pitiful and measly coverage of the debunking of the scandal. Left vs. Right aside, the tendency of progressives to make too many assumptions and preach to their own choir has resulted in this electoral cycle’s “mandate” against climate science reality. Non-partisan scientists getting heavily proactive (if it can still be called that) seems critical right now.

So I did a little research on the piece and here’s the thing: The AGU immediately denied the story (which had already been picked up by news outlets and then the blogosphere at large) saying the report of their push-communication effort was bogus. “In contrast to what has been reported in the LA Times and elsewhere, there is no campaign by AGU against climate skeptics or congressional conservatives,” says Christine McEntee, Executive Director and CEO of the American Geophysical Union. “AGU will continue to provide accurate scientific information on Earth and space topics to inform the general public and to support sound public policy development.” What the AGU is instead doing, says its release, is “relaunching” an ask-for-info-and-we’ll-give-it-you Q & A service for journalists to coincide with the upcoming UN Climate Change Conference in Cancun, Mexico.

This begs the question: What’s the problem here? Haven’t we learned that laying facts on the table and then walking away from them in the hopes that they will be eagerly devoured by a truth-hungry public is just well – milquetoast? I don’t want to jump on scientific groups who, like the AGU, don’t want to be advocates involved in any “commentary” on policy, but when are our specialists going to leave their towers and hit the streets with what they know?

I mean, hey, white coats, your high-profile presence is required! Here’s what was accurately reported in the LA Times story: Now-powerful congressmen such as Darrell Issa of California, Joe L. Barton of Texas and F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin have pledged to “investigate the Environmental Protection Agency‘s regulation of greenhouse gas emissions” and the Climategate scandal.

Oh, and then there’s John Shimkus of Illinois (who wants to head the Energy and Commerce Committee) on why we need not worry about climate change: “God will decide when to end the Earth, not man.”

Cough.

As near as I can tell, the LA Times story may have been triggered by the activity of John Abraham of St. Thomas University in Minnesota, a scientist and climate science advocate who is involved in putting together a “climate rapid response team,” which “includes scientists prepared to go before what they consider potentially hostile audiences on conservative talk radio and television shows.” So far, his effort reportedly has dozens of leading scientists on board to “defend the consensus on global warming in the scientific community.”

Here’s what we need to hear more of: Scott Mandia, professor of physical sciences at Suffolk County Community College in New York, says “this group feels strongly that science and politics can’t be divorced and that we need to take bold measures to not only communicate science but also to aggressively engage the denialists and politicians who attack climate science and its scientists. We are taking the fight to them because we are, tired of taking the hits. The notion that truth will prevail is not working. The truth has been out there for the past two decades, and nothing has changed.”

Abraham wrote about his efforts in the guardian.co.uk (on the same day as the LA Times story), where he also mentioned the (later denied) AGU plan. In the piece, he points out that (wait for it…) “Scientists have not been effective communicators” as while “approximately 97 percent of the top climate scientists believe we have a problem – the general public and members of government are split on this issue.”

Perhaps prescient of the AGU’s shy stance, he adds, “It is a shame that scientists have to take personal and professional risks in order to be good citizens of the planet. It doesn’t have to be this way.”

Maybe I just have some post-election blues, but before the dust truly settles here, perhaps we had better kick it up again and maybe – (cough) – we could use some more noise from the folks in white.

Image: NASA Goddard Photo and Video

The post Battle Lost, War to Win: (Some) Climate Scientists Fight Back appeared first on EcoSalon.

The Australian people have spoken, and they said “meh”.

In case you missed it, there was a federal election in Australia on Saturday and it was an important one. Aussies love a good election and there are usually sausage sizzles and cake stalls down at the polling booths. With only 20 million people, Australians vote by hand and the counting is also done by hand with volunteer scrutineers from all parties overseeing the process. There are no hanging chads in an Australian election and Aussies usually know the results the very same night.

Not this time. For the first time since World War 2, Australia is in limbo and the only confirmed winners are the Greens.

Australians didn’t like what they saw on either side of the political fence. In the words of The Guardian: “A choice between one party that persists in throwing away its advantages and another that persists in ignoring critical issues is not much of a choice.”

The candidates and issues

The incumbent was Julia Gillard, Australia’s first ever female Prime Minister. Her party is the centre-left Australian Labor Party, which held the most seats in the Australian House of Representatives by a decent majority before last Saturday. The previous Prime Minister was Kevin Rudd from the same party, who won the 2007 election. The trouble is that his own party turned on him two months ago and Gillard took the leadership and became Prime Minister. She almost immediately called an election to legitimise her power.

As Prime Minister, Rudd belatedly signed Australia up to the Kyoto Protocol, tried hard to get a proper climate change deal in Copenhagen and tried twice but failed to get a carbon emissions trading scheme through parliament. He also wanted to introduce a special tax on super-profits in the mining industry. He wasn’t deep green, but he was certainly progressive.

You can imagine Gillard caused some excitement as the first female PM. She is also unmarried with a common-law husband, is child-free and is an atheist. But any gender advantage soon evaporated, as people resented the way she knifed the elected Prime Minister.

For environmentalists, Gillard was disappointingly weak. She dropped the mining tax under pressure from the mining industry and right-wing media commentators on talk-back radio and in the press. On climate change, she said that, if re-elected, she would convene an assembly of ordinary Australians to decide what to do. Quite what was meant by “ordinary Australians” was unclear. At any rate, Australia already has an assembly to help it decide on important issues – it’s called parliament.

The main opposition was Tony Abbott, leader of the conservative party that in Australia is confusingly called the Liberal Party. Abbott is the opposite of Gillard in his personal life. He once trained as a Catholic priest and is married with daughters whom he apparently advises to protect their “precious gift” of virginity. He is deeply socially conservative and has described himself as “not entirely comfortable” with gay people. Trivia: a fitness buff, he’s known as the “Budgie Smuggler” for wearing Speedo swim briefs on the beach.

Abbott doesn’t believe in human-caused climate change. He ran a negative, but effective, campaign and drummed up a lot of hysteria about illegal immigrants, known in Australia as “boat people” after the rickety boats they use to cross the Indian Ocean.

The election result

So… it seems that Australians decided to vote for “none of the above”. In Australia, voting is compulsory as it’s considered not just a civil right but also a civil responsibility. (Though what you do with the ballot paper is your own business.)

A record number of people voting for independents and minor parties. The Australian Greens saw a huge swing toward them, picking up over 13% of the vote. They won a seat in the Lower House in a general election for the first time ever – the seat of Melbourne in, er, Melbourne. And in the Senate it looks like they’ve increased their numbers from five to nine and will hold the balance of power in their own right. Greens leader Senator Bob Brown, shown below, is calling it a “greenslide”.

What next?

While Gillard is still caretaker PM, we still don’t know who will be the Prime Minister of Australia by the end of the week. Neither Abbott’s Liberal-National Coalition nor Gillard’s Labor Party have the 76 seats they need to govern in their own right. In fact, it looks like they might wind up with exactly 73 seats each, making the choice even more difficult.

Both Gillard and Abbott need the support of the Green and independent members of parliament to form government. The Green MP for Melbourne has said he won’t support Abbott but the independents, who may or may not vote together, are waiting for counting to be completed.

There are echoes of the UK election earlier this year, when both the Conservative and Labour parties failed to win an out-right majority. The Liberal Democrats held the balance of power and eventually went into coalition with the Conservatives. However, this is somewhat different – a minority government that operates with support of independents is not the same as a formal coalition of two parties. And the four MPs not from the major parties are all quite different from one another.

Whoever does manage to scrounge together a majority in the House and form a government will still need the cooperation of the Greens in the Senate to get their agenda through. The quid pro quo for that might be more meaningful action on environmental issues, such as climate change and water management.

Follow the Australian election on Twitter by looking up the hashtag #ausvotes.

Image: linh_rom

The post Australian Election Delivers ‘Greenslide’ but Outcome in Limbo appeared first on EcoSalon.