Today I will be outlining my case that the use of drugs should be legalised. Because this case involves several angles and applies equally to all drugs in use today, It is more easily set out in conjunction with Herbet J. Taylor’s four-way test.

So firstly, I am going to look at some of the assumptions underlying Government policy today, and subit them to the first part of this four-way test: is it true? Then, outlining my own case, I shall demonstrate that legalising drug use is the fair thing to do by all concerned. That it will build goodwill and better friendships, and that the legalisation of drug use is beneficial to all concerned.

One of the assumptions regarding drug use is that it is harmful. This is true. The use of any drug carries a risk of serious health consequences, and even if such consequences do not occur, it can still cause an impact on a person’s health. However, the harm that comes of drugs can be managed and minimised by legalising the use of the drugs and taking steps to make it safer, a point I shall return to later. Also in regard to this, just because the use of drugs is dangerous, it does not mean that it should be illegal. Already legislation allows many dangerous activities: skydiving, alcohol consumption, AFL, smoking cigarettes. We allow these activities because we can respect a person’s right to choose and possibly face a danger of their own free will. We do not allow these activities when they have the potential to harm others: drunk driving is, and should be an offence, tackling someone Footy style is classified as assault, and legislation is coming into place to limit smoking in venues where second hand smoke can harm other people. By this same rationale, while I believe we should legalise the use of drugs, it should not be legal to use drugs when it can place others in danger, drug use in conjunction with driving for example. This is only the fair thing to do.

The second assumption regarding drug use is that it will increase if drugs are legalised. This is a worrying assumption, because it potentially means that even though legalisation can minimise harm, the increase in number of users would cancel out the benefits. Thankfully, this assumption is not true.

We have examples disproving this assumption in history, and in our own day. In America in 1914, when drugs like cocaine were available on grocery shelves, 1.3% of the population was addicted. In 1979, before the so-called “War on Drugs” crackdown, the addiction rate was still 1.3%. Today, while billions of dollars are being spent to reduce drug use, the addiction rate is still 1.3%. This is because most people realise the negative impact a drug can have and choose not to use it. The other 1.3% of the population wishes to use cocaine and will do so whether it is legal or not. Another example, of our own era, is the presence of cigarettes. Cigarettes in Australia cannot be sold to people under 18. Effectively, when a person turns 18, for him, cigarettes become, ‘legal’. However, there is no rush to buy cigarettes. This is because youth nowadays are informed of the health damage that smoking will cause and so make an informed decision against it. The people who would start buying cigarettes at 18 would already have an addiction, more evidence that access to drugs is possible regardless of legislation.

Having discussed the harm associated with drug use, and that legalisation does not correlate with an increase in usage, I believe that we should legalise drug use because by doing so we can minimise the various harms associated with it. By doing this we are acting fairly, respecting a person’s right to make their own choices. We are building goodwill by removing the antipathy towards drug users, and benefitting all concerned by helping those who use drugs, preventing non-users from being harmed, and freeing vast resources for greater use elsewhere.

Using a drug whether it is legal to do so or not carries potential for harm, but using an illegal drug is far more potentially harmful than using an illegal drug. Some of the greatest risks associated with drug use are the possibility of using an impure substance, infection from unclean needles, and financial problems. The legalisation of drug use can minimise all of these harms. If drugs were sold legally then there would be more control over the quality of the substance and the consumer would be able to ensure the purity of supply. No longer having to buy drugs on the streets, our 1.3% of the population would have access to a clean version of the drug. If we look at the use of heroin, one of the more dangerous drugs, it is particularly dangerous due to the HIV risk. If a Government recognises that people are using heroin and allows them access to clean needles, it can limit the spread of HIV. In Holland, I quote the Dutch Minister of Health, “the possession of small quantities of illicit drugs for personal consumption really is not a matter for the police.” Amsterdam, in Holland, operates a needle-exchange programme and that has helped to keep down the level of HIV infection. An already low rate of drug-related deaths is actually falling, and drug-related violence in the Netherlands is minimal.

And the third harm associated with drug use is the financial problems. Ofter, drug addicts will find themselves needing a fix, but without the money. This sort of situation often leads to break-ins, which harm good people everywhere. By legalising drugs, the free market will dictate a realistic price, and so this situation will occur less. I will also point out that, without fail, when the price of marijuana, for example, rises, users will start drinking more beer, associated with a higher incidence of drink-driving, or move onto harder drugs. The legalisation of drugs ensures a price that will not encourage crime in desperate addicts, a substance that isn’t tainted, and gives the opportunity to institute programs to minimise the harm of drug use. We are treating users fairly in respeting their autonomy and right to health, and the recognition promotes an equal relationship, better friendship with those too often seen as inferior.

Before I discuss how the legalisation of drugs benefits non-users, I would like to deal with the argument that legalisation will promote addiction levels. I see addiction as a fly in the ointment as ’twere, because an addicted drug user has actually lost their able to choose, and so I can’t argue that we should respect this right. But again, research comes to my aid. In the Netherlands, a brilliant example for me, as one of few more western countries to effectively legalise drug use, drug addiction rates, though hard to measure, are actually thought to be slightly lower than in the UK or France, and very much lower than in the US, which fights tooth and nail in the war against drugs. In America, a 1994 Rand study shows that treatment of heavy cocaine users is seven times more effective than asset forfeitures, arrest and imprisonment. The same study shows that the cost of treatment is one-fourth that of police enforcement. There you have it. Drug addiction is an awful thing. By outlawing the drugs, an addict is forced to greater and greater lengths in order to procure a supply. With drugs legal, the addict can be realistically treated, and their problem dealt with. Again, it is fair to addicts to treat them with respect and goodwill while trying to help them.

I have just discussed how the legalisation of drugs is beneficial to the drug users. But the legalisation of drugs is in fact beneficial to all concerned, so I will now show how it benefits non drug users.

The most immediate case is that of the family of a drug user. These people do not use drugs and are often helpless to deal with the addiction of the user. In Australia, this family, which is already suffering just by having the drug user in the family, could have their sorrow compounded by having the person sent to jail. If the drugs are legal, yes, the family will still face the problems of drug use. But the user, if addicted, can be treated more even-handedly, or otherwise be able to continue the usage without endangering himself or the family.

For the wider society, we don’t have such a face-to-face relationship with drug use. But the legalisation of drug use still benefits us in a wide ranging way, through the re-distribution of resources. A large amount of time and money in our law enforcement system goes towards dealing with drug offences.

Of the people adjudicated in Australia’s Higher Courts in 2005-06, 17% were finalised for illicit drug offences. Only 3% of these people were acquitted. If we ignore whether or not these people even deserve to be imprisoned, this means that 2333 people were jailed for drug offences. This means that each of these people was given a bed in prison, and fed and attended to out of the public purse. What it also means, with prisons overcrowded as they are, is that other prisoners are more likely to be let out early on parole. While believing in rehabilitation as the purpose of our penal system, ladies and gentleman, convicted rapists or murders should be let out when they are no longer a threat to our society, not because their space is needed for a drug user.

Furthermore, the police costs of having to constantly attend to drug offences begins mounting, meaning that more tax dollars are spent on police actions against drug activity. And this also means that police are being taken away from investigating break-ins or robberies, or other more serious crime.

So imagine with me what the case would be if drug use was legalised. Australia’s courts would have fewer cases to deal with, being able to run more efficiently, and less expensively. Prisons would not be crowded with those whose only crime was drug use. The police force would have less work to do, requiring less money and being able to focus on crimes that actually harm other people. Thus it is all too apparent that the legalisation of drugs benefits each and everyone of us, by freeing up resources in the public sector for more worthwhile causes. Not to mention that the customs officials would be able to focus on preventing importation of truly dangerous goods, not drugs. That people would not have to be ashamed of an innocent, and indeed, widespread occurrence.

The war on drugs will never be won. So many people use drugs, that, in the USA for example, It would cost $365 billion to jail everyone who smoked marijuana last year – five times the total state and local spending for all police, courts and prisons. The money spent fighting against drug use is ill spent and more useful elsewhere. A better war fought, is a war against ignorance and unnecessary suffering, a war to minimise the harm that comes of drugs, to treat people fairly regardless of what they do in private, a war to allow each person to make decision’s for his or her own interests.

It is true that legalising drugs is the right thing to do, because it is fair to all concerned. It builds goodwill and better friendships, and it will be beneficial to all concerned. Mark Twain remarked, “What we know that isn’t true can cause more harm than what we don’t know”, and now I place you in an enviable situation- knowing the truth. Drug use should be legalised.

The above was a speech delivered about drugs, which is particularly applicable to marijuana.

Popularity: 29% [?]

I love how they have senate submissions and ask stakeholders to contribute. Arguably on every issue, but particularly on climate policy, every single global citizen is a stakeholder. But I’m not sure if they could handle 7 billion submissions. 

The Australian people are facing a catastrophe if we do not act to mitigate the threat of climate change. Human society has so far flourished during a period known as the Holocene, during which global mean surface temperatures have varied little, and the sea level has been almost constant. Climate change threatens to disturb this balance, drive up temperatures, raise sea levels, and endanger human civilisation as we know it.

The CPRS legislation indicates a fatal disregard for this scientifically-accepted conclusion. The 5%/15% target is woeful and scientifically inadequate. The compensation to polluters fails to create an incentive or serious price signal that will drive the change that is needed in our society – most worryingly is the compensation given to the coal industry. While the compensation given to EITE industries is expensive, I agree with it in principle. The compensation given to the coal industry is without rationale or justification – James Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute, amongst many other scientists, justly calls for an end to all coal-burning as a necessary step to addressing global warming. Furthermore, the scheme allows for unlimited international ‘carbon credits’, that is, businesses can offset their domestic emissions by decreasing emissions in other countries. As I understand it, treasury modelling indicates that Australia’s emissions will actually rise, given this provision. While this may seem a technical point, the truth is that we need to not just reduce international emissions, but have a paradigm shift in Australian cities, and move towards a carbon-free future. International exports do not support this.

Also, as you hopefully are aware, Richard Denniss of the Australia Institute makes an irresistible case against the CPRS on the grounds that it ignores the efforts of individuals. In short, emissions reductions undertaken by concerned individuals – say, by installing insulation, or solar hot water - will simply free up permits to be used by others, most likely the big polluters. The 5% target thus represents not only a ceiling, but a floor, and emissions reductions cannot go beneath that in the current scheme.

Addressing climate change is the single most important issue facing the world today. Luckily, we need not address it at the expense of human well-being. Various modelling has shown that stabilising at a lower level of carbon dioxides has a net-cost near zero. Aside from protecting a livable climate, benefits would include: lower rates of the respiratory illness brought about by photochemical smog and airborne pollutants; lowering the strain that these illnesses put on our health system and those costs; reducing oil imports from middle-eastern countries with a history of supporting terrorism – imports that effectively subsidise terror; minimising the other environmental harms associated with fossil fuel mining and production, such as oil spills, coal ash slides, groundwater contamination and wilderness and habitat destruction.

Economic benefits would inevitable flow from this movement. International competitivity would be increased by greater environmental legislation – countries such as Germany are an example of this, having a high rate of patents of environmental technology. Green jobs would be created, jobs that couldn’t be outsourced, and many of these jobs would be in rural areas. Investments in efficiency would shortly pay for themselves, working out to be cost-negative, saving both businesses and individuals money. The extra disposable income for all people would act as a further stimulus to the economy. 

The case for climate action, properly understood, is, quite simply, without flaw. In this day and age, every parliamentarian – indeed, every holder of power in every nation – is morally indebted to those who their decisions affect, and this moral obligation demands decisive, inspirational, world-changing and life-saving action against climate change.

Popularity: 66% [?]

Dear Mr. Rudd,

We are living through a momentous time. Recent events such as the global financial crisis, Barack Obama’s election, the apology to the Stolen Generations, are of great historical significance, with consequences that will resound through centuries to come. Decisions made by politicians in the upcoming few years have the potential to usher in a future of security and prosperity. Alternately, wrong or misguided decisions could spell disaster. It is with this in mind that I would like you to think more deeply about several aspects of the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The first issue of concern is the 5% minimum target for reductions. 

In 2007, you brought your party into power, offering a vision of a new leadership. While admittedly similar to John Howard in many regards, you offered voters a more intelligent, more thoughtful, and all-together more human choice for Prime Minister. On the issue of climate change you promised to sign Kyoto and bring in other reforms: most notably, to commit to a new international greenhouse gas emissions target, even if big polluters like China and the United States do not sign up. The 5% target can only be understood as a betrayal of this promise.

I understand that, due to population modelling, this 5% target turns out to be 27-34% below 2000 levels on a per capita basis. This number is, however, misleading. Although Australia is only responsible for 1.1% of global emissions, we are the greatest emitter per capita, at 20.6 megatonnes of carbon dioxide per person annually. While China is the world’s biggest emitter, they only emit 4.6 megatonnes of carbon dioxide per person. Surely, this considered, Australia has room to cut our emissions more significantly. As the world’s largest per capita emitter, we should be making the largest per capita emission cuts, trying to arrive at a level that is globally sustainable. 

Beyond the target itself though, are more egregious policy flaws in the matter of compensation. Firstly, the sheer amount of compensation is ridiculous. The purpose of an emissions trading scheme is to take an external cost, carbon dioxide pollution, which doesn’t cost the business but does cost the world, and internalise it, so that there is an economic incentive to reduce pollution. If 97% of the funds are being used as compensation, then the price signal is dampened and the urgent need for ‘business as usual’ to change will not be properly realised. Additionally, the allocation of compensation is flawed. Many of Australia’s worst polluters are set to receive amounts in the hundreds of millions in compensation, over the top compensation that will only cost taxpayers into the future. As you no doubt know, Ross Garnaut has also criticised aspects of the compensation, pointing out that there appeared to be no clear principles or criteria behind particular decisions. More particularly, the Scheme states that petrol prices will not change in the first three years. Given the natural market variation in petrol price, a one-off increase, in the context of already volatile prices, would hardly impoverish low-income families. Given that those on a high-income stand to save more from a reduction in the price of petrol, it makes more sense to allow the price of petrol to rise. $4.4 billion would be saved if the fuel-tax adjustment were not instituted, some of which could no doubt be used to compensate those who would be threatened by a higher petrol price. This would serve to adequately promote changes in consumer behaviour towards sustainable methods of transport. 

The coal industry is also set to receive $1.4 billion dollars over the first two years of the trading scheme, because it is ‘Strongly Affected’. The reason it is strongly affected is because it emits a huge amout of greenhouse pollution. While the White Paper alludes to CCS as a possible method for allowing coal to continue to play a part in energy generation, this technology is prohibitively expensive and is unlikely to be in any way viable until at least 2020. The recent coal spill in Tennessee, which covered as many as 400 acres of land with toxic ash up to six feet deep, also reminds us of the intrinsic harms associated with ongoing coal mining. Energy generation from coal has no rightful place in Australia’s future. The facts that so much money goes to this highly dangerous industry, that the price of petrol will not change, and that so much money is going into compensation render the proposed trading scheme particularly ineffective. 

I understand though, that there are persuasive arguments against a stronger trading scheme, these being that Australia is responsible for only a small proportion of global emissions, that we must protect our jobs and economy, and that our isolated actions would have no value. None of these arguments, however, justifies the flimsiness of the proposed scheme. 

The first point I have referred to earlier. While Australia is responsible for only a small proportion of global emissions, we are the greatest polluter per capita. Under a successful long-term global scheme, emission allowances would necessarily be based upon the population of the nation in question. We thus ought to consider our relatively small population and make cuts that properly address our disproportionate consumption. Furthermore, Australia is privileged to be a first world nation. The economic growth that Australia has historically enjoyed is what has enabled our comfortable lifestyle. Other countries are not so fortunate and are still trying to grow their economies in order to meet the basic needs of their population. We must acknowledge our privilege in being so well-placed to face the problem of climate change: despite our small overall current contribution, we must act as befits our relative wealth and position, and make appropriate cuts. 

The question of jobs and economy is something of a false dilemma; the inaccurate perception that we must choose between economic growth and trying to mitigate climate change. For example, increases in efficiency will be a necessary part of dealing with climate change. Joseph Romm, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress who was acting assistant secretary of energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy during the Clinton Administration, and whose blog is available at www.climateprogress.org, cites numerous examples of cases where investment in efficiency has not only reduced pollution, but provided significant returns. Programs he refers to have yielded economic returns of an estimated $40 billion from an investment of $13 billion. Additionally, efficiency can continually be reinvested in, as the technology is continually improving and the information is spreading to more people. In Australia, research estimates that South Australia could cut its energy use by 20% over a 20 year period and create up to 2700 jobs through investment in efficiency. Nationwide, an ongoing national study (SEAV and Allen Consulting Group) has found that implementing 50% of the currently commercially available energy efficiency measures would — over 12 years — reduce stationary energy use by 9%, create an extra 9000 jobs and increase GDP by $1.8 billion. These figures provide some indication of the jobs that promotion of efficiency could create. More general investment in green energy and technology is sure to increase employment. Germany is known for its pioneering solar feed-in tariff and is a world leader in renewable energy. They have been able to add 57,000 jobs in the wind, solar, hydro, and biomass industries between 2004 and 2006. Already in Australia, many businesses are realising the competitive advantage to be had by being able to produce their products more cheaply and are investing in sustainability projects. These businesses have realised that movement to mitigate climate change is not about sacrifice but about sustainability, about finding ways to waste less. Fundamentally, your government must recognise this truth, that dealing with climate change in fact offers Australia an unprecedented opportunity to create jobs, grow our economy, and capitalise upon our unique capability to utilise renewable sources of energy. 

While protesting outside the Stamford Grand, wherein was held Adelaide’s public consultation on the white paper of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, I was taken to task by a passer-by. She pointed out that there isn’t some sort of fence around Australia, that we function as part of a global conglomerate, and that we should wait on global co-operation before proceeding too seriously. While her premises were sound, her conclusions rung false. As I have previously discussed, Australia, as a wealthy nation, bears a responsibility to, from its position of power, do a great deal to assist global mitigation efforts. Less wealthy nations are looking to us to show leadership on this matter; the 5% target is seen as ‘throwing in the towel’, and this perception discourages developing countries from signing on to a global climate package. South African Environment Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk has been featured in The Australian as saying “I don’t believe [Australia’s package] is nearly good enough to bring developing countries to the table.” Oxfam representatives have also dismissed the proposed 5/15% range, saying “Clearly this is not a credible range for Australia.” Australia has often been a powerful play in international negotiations, for example, an Australian headed the United Nations Commission on Human Rights that drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is time for us again to rise to the challenge and declare emissions reductions targets that will provide an example to the rest of the world of our commitment and resolve and our understanding of the opportunities that mitigation affords.

Fundamentally, it comes down to the science and the science is unequivocal. Nobel Laureate Dr. Steve Chu, Director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, California, has warned of “sudden, unpredictable, and irreversible disaster.” Professor James Lovelock, independent scientist, originator of the Gaia Theory, described by New Scientist as one of the century’s greatest thinkers, has prophesied that maybe 20% of humanity will survive. James E. Hansen, head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and an Adjunct Professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University, refers to the potential for large-scale species extermination, ice-sheet disintegration, and the creation of havoc and hundreds of millions of climate refugees. The environment cannot be negotiated with. The ‘safe’ or ‘pragmatic’ course on climate change isn’t a cursory attempt to mitigation that prioritises the growth of Australia’s polluting industries. The only safe, pragmatic and sensible option is one that puts the Australia’s next generation before the next election. I urge you, Mr. Rudd, to re-think the proposed scheme. If Australia is to change, we need clear political leadership, and you are in a unique position to deliver. The future of Australia lies very much in your hands.

Popularity: 76% [?]

Climate change, global warming, emission targets and renewables are among many terms now widely used by the community, no longer limited to industry specific groups. Climate change is not a localised issue, nor is it one that discriminates based on superficial factors. Although the local impacts will be felt differently, essentially it is a global phenomenon. One that will effect everyone; with the poorest nations and their peoples to be the first impacted.

We have already seen the submergence of Tuvalu due to rising sea levels. We have seen the implications of drought not only in third world countries but, also closer to home in the Murray Darling River. We have seen cyclones wiping out whole communities in Burma and Queensland. We, the youth of today have grown up with these images embedded into our memory. These events are not abnormalities, they are merely the precursor for what is to come.

As evident in the Garnaut Report these occurrences can no longer be completely avoided but, they can be downsized. The youth of today are forced to grow up in a world facing a diabolical challenge. This stark reality has occurred predominately due to governmental inaction, nationally and globally. The youth of today are forced to call upon the new Australian government to show leadership in the face of crisis. Whilst youth or community movements are a focal point in preventing climate change, it is the responsibility of the Government to represent the needs of society at large. 

The Government have not imposed a flawed tax or illogical carbon emissions trading scheme. They have done nothing. Signing Kyoto was the first step to resolving climate change however, it is not the only step. Complying to an international treaty does not give the Government the freedom to invest in geosequestration rather than renewables, dredge bays or build pulp mills. The consequences of any of these actions are not beneficial or logical.

The Garnaut Report not only confirms that climate change exists, despite denial from certain community groups. It goes one step further to suggest that climate change is happening at a faster rate than previously predicted by the IPCC.

Garnaut recommends that Australia introduces a carbon emissions trading scheme by 2010. Fifteen per cent of Australia’s emissions are derived from transportation hence, it is vital that fuel is included in the scheme. Whilst this presents a fundamental challenge to working families, the opportunity to substantially invest in public transport and green infrastructure should be embraced by the Government. Societal trends in the past year have demonstrated the rise of public transport despite the state that it is in. The limiting of forestry and coal mining would also be focal points of such a scheme. Although this would result in the gradual discontinuation of the coal industry, it allows for the introduction and implementation of the sustainable renewables industry. Allowing the coal industry, and as a consequent climate change, to run rampant would result in the decimation of the tourism and agricultural industries amongst others.

Governmental support of coal and supposedly clean coal by the government has resulted in citizens forced into resorting to direct action through non-violent civil disobedience. The urgency of climate change is not reflected in public policy. The Government needs to create a just transition for communities by investing in real green energy. These actions must be implemented immediately, climate change is a problem that demands action today, not tomorrow.

Whilst these solutions are vital, they do not necessarily alleviate the rate at which energy is being consumed in Australia. The community needs to be educated in the urgency and consequences of any inaction demonstrated on their behalf. Across Australia and the globe, we have seen the emergence of community climate change campaigns.

The education of community groups and students alike is needed in order to achieve a wider understanding of the issue. The will inevitably lead to the realisation that Australia does not have the capacity to help climate refugees. These will be the people that have to suffer the most. Unless Australia’s international immigration policies are reformed, then in the very near future we could have many millions of people displaced permanently.
Solving the problem of climate change is not just directly addressing the current pressing implications, it is also about sustainable development for the future. It is wise, and recommended by many economists, that Australia adopts an environmentally sustainable development policy. This would ensure major corporations to schools and community groups will be forced to reconsider any steps taken towards further urbanisation. By forward thinking, the Government would essentially be avoiding the replications of current societal issues.

The actions that we, as individuals, choose to perform can either benefit or degrade the environment further. There are many easy solutions, such as changing your light bulb or convincing those around you to also live energy efficiently. In addition to this, you could support environmentally conscientious community groups or non-governmental organisations. Alternatively, actively engaging in the democratic process of Australia is also an element of contributing to the prevention of disastrous climate change. Australians of all ages and walks of life are afforded the luxury of shaping the way their country is governed. Hence, it is important that people participate in the lobbying of government through advocacy and letter writing.

An increase of two degrees Celsius in the global temperature appears to be unavoidable if nothing is done to address the problem. This would have devastating results, resulting in a chain reaction of subsequent temperature increases. A one degree rise, which is unavoidable, would result with a dramatic increase of climate refugees and famine. Two degrees would begin with the extinction of one third of the world’s species, to an increase of four degrees which would leave Great Britain unlivable. Such a rise in temperature is not feasible, climate change is not a political game. Garnaut asserts that bipartisan action is the only effective means to stop climate change. This is not something that we want to risk in order to just win the next election.

Individual action is the first step in halting climate change, and this often transcends into collective action by common interest groups. Community action in regards to climate change needs to be complemented with regulations and policy reforms by the Government.

Climate change is present and on the rise now, it is not only the children of the future who will be effected. It’s us now. The future of our livelihoods as we know it is at stake. The future of the planet we inhabit, the planet we consider home is at stake. We have everything to lose but, we could also have everything to gain. Never before has there been a time where both the people and the Government can create extraordinary social change.

The time for tokenism is over.

Action must start now.

This piece was co-authored by Linh Do, Jake Wishart, Tony McCarthy and David Toovey.

Popularity: 9% [?]