Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Hi Ernest, even though I don't agree with your political affiliations, You're right in your supposition regarding the return to a 19^th century elitist approach. I struggle to see any real difference between Howard and Rudd and as the days go on, the more the differences are blurred. Your champion seems to be on a bulging head trip, already obsessed with power and control. The performance of Labor's environment minister is further proof of the Tweedledum Tweedledee approach of the ruling lib/lab coalition, neither faction has placed before the people real approaches and outcomes for climate change and other than meaningless frills around the edges, both seem totally locked into the status quo. Where are the policies needed to address the daily deteriorating situation? The Arctic Nth W. passage wasn't expected to be fully open for at least 20-30years, yet is now navigable and currently being surveyed for commercial shipping. We are already seeing a huge increase in spontaneous violent storms hitting our coast lines, continuing drought, earlier wild bush fires. A real solution for the Murray Darling calamity has disappeared, as lib/lab across the country fight to be on the top of the propaganda heap, with meaningless handouts and very short term bandaid fixes which won't solve the problems. Climate change is happening decades before the experts predicted, but no response from lib/lab.

Howard is throwing billions at the Pacific highway, as oil supplies dwindle, yet they send our best alternative energy inventions into oblivion, bankruptcy or overseas. Australian green house gas emissions are now high above what they expected in 2020, yet Rudd just says, me too John.

So Ernest where is the justice for the people and the environment in all this, where is the future under this lib/lab elitist coalition? I see no solution until we stop voting for those whose only intent is corporate control, irrelevant to the real outcomes. Kevin .07, seems above the legal limit to me, already drinking out of the same bowl as Johnny and Co and getting drunker on the poisonous flavours of power.

Perhaps it is my service training but, we are taught to concentrate on the major issues at hand.

Especially the Army - they cannot afford to lose absolute concentration in times of peril.

I believe that we ARE in times of peril and this forum provides an avenue of dissent, generally outlawed in Howard's "New Order" Australia.

While I feel that the problems overseas are in many ways affecting our security, for better or worse; our morality, for better or worse; our hatred of torture and the murder of innocent people, I still feel that at this time in our history, the concern of those issues are only for those who can afford them. 

We are a nation that, in my life-time, has changed so much from a society of "unfairly treated deportees" (English laws against the poor) to a world-recognised egalitarian community.

And I have witnessed the controlled return to the former unhappy situation due to the Howard "New Order".

So, I make no apology for my parochial attitude.

The Howard "New Order" has taken us back to the 19th century, legally, morally and industrially.

Well might the "New Order" say, we were born to rule.

Bring on the election.

NE OUBLIE.

Professor Flannery says these new figures show that greenhouse gas levels had already reached levels deemed to be dangerous by mid-2005.

"We've really seen an unexpected acceleration in the rate of accumulation of CO2 itself," he said.

"I mean that's been beyond the limits of projection, beyond the worst-case scenario as we thought of it in 2001, and some of the other gases also have been produced on a larger scale than was easy to have imagined."

He says the actual levels of greenhouse gases present in the atmosphere are far beyond what has previously been modelled by climate scientists.

"What the report establishes is that the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is already above the threshold that could potentially cause dangerous climate change," he said.

"So if I was trying to summarise it, what it says is that we already stand an unacceptable risk of dangerous climate change and that the need for action is ever more urgent."

Solar power will soon be providing baseload electricity - that is, day and night - at prices competitive with coal.

Those associated with the project believe it could signal a paradigm shift in electricity generation.

After decades as a fringe player in the energy industry, solar power is finally taking off in the world's largest economy.

Dr Mills says solar power could potentially supply most of the world's electricity.

"My hope, my dream if you will, is that this will become a mechanism not only for the majority of the electricity generation in the United States but the majority globally," he said.

Howard and Turnbull are putting Australia's eggs in the nuclear or coal industries, meanwhile Australian solar technology is likely to provide the majority of the US with electricity.

We do not have the time to wait for nuclear or the fantasy of clean coal.

We need to invest now in solar power stations. 

Sydney Declaration: Do nothing and damn the consequences

9th Sep 07

Australian Greens Climate Change Spokesperson, Senator Christine Milne, today condemned last night's APEC Sydney Declaration as an agreement that recognises the challenge of climate change but does nothing to face up to that challenge.

Senator Milne said "If there is one thing more unforgivably irresponsible than refusing to acknowledge impending danger, it is recognising that danger, pretending to face up to it, but doing nothing to stop it. In the cold light of day, that is what Mr Howard, Mr Bush and all the other so-called leaders have done with the APEC Sydney Declaration.

"The whole agreement is geared towards marginal changes at a glacial pace. With glacial melt already speeding up, this is the time for swift and decisive action.

"The Sydney Declaration leaves the 2C challenge behind. Scientists tell us we need global emissions to peak in the next 8 years if we are to keep warming to less that 2C, above which we risk runaway climate change. But APEC has agreed to keep emissions rising for at least 25 years, deliberately risking catastrophe.

"Energy intensity targets, at the heart of the Declaration, are

specifically designed to obscure reality. They allow politicians to talk in apparently high numbers - 25% by 2030 - but will actually see emissions continue to grow only slightly slower than they otherwise would, when they need to be coming down rapidly.

"What's more, these energy intensity targets are pitifully unambitious. China has already set itself far more stringent intensity targets - 20% by 2010. Rich nations can easily achieve absolute emissions reductions with simple, cheap energy efficiency measures.

"But, in the Sydney Declaration, coal remains king, and the ongoing use of fossil fuels is prioritised over energy efficiency and renewable energy every time.

"The afforestation targets in the Declaration are both weak and

hypocritical. How can the Australian Government tell our neighbours in Indonesia and PNG to stop logging when Tasmania's forests are still being felled at a tremendous rate and the Prime Minister's favoured Pulp Mill will emit 10 million tonnes of CO2 every year.

"The one bright spot in the declaration is the commitment to progress with the UN climate change framework, snubbing Mr Howard and President Bush.

"Australian voters looking approvingly at Mr Rudd's call for binding targets in should be asking him how he plans to meet sich targets when he supports expanding the coal industry and won't even let his potential Environment Minister assess the Gunns Pulp Mill on the basis of its greenhouse emissions."

There is a cavernous gap between the urgency of the warnings from science and the political response to it. The concern among the public is way ahead of that of our politicians but it remains true that the public simply has no grasp of the magnitude of the disaster that looms ahead of us.

Nowhere in the rich world, except perhaps in the US, is this radical disconnect greater than in Australia.............

In the climate change debate, while the dangers of global warming have been deliberately understated, those opposed to taking action have engaged in absurd exaggeration of the economic costs of cutting emissions.

The Prime Minister, various ministers and the fossil fuel lobby have for years claimed that cutting emissions would be economically ruinous, cause massive job losses and destroy our international competitiveness. None of these claims is backed by credible evidence and can easily be shown to be false.

Hansen reminds us that taking measures to reduce the risks of these catastrophic events will require us to begin immediately to shift to a radically different energy and greenhouse gas emissions path. At present such a shift is politically unimaginable; yet if we do not imagine it very soon, then generations to come will pay very dearly indeed.

APEC failed to agree on targets and now we are looking at "aspiration al targets". I have an aspirational target of weighing 80kg, I have been trying to get there for forty years. A target without a date is a dream.

Experts say they are "stunned" by the loss of ice, with an area almost twice as big as the UK disappearing in the last week alone.

So much ice has melted this summer that the Northwest passage across the top of Canada is fully navigable, and observers say the Northeast passage along Russia's Arctic coast could open later this month.

If the increased rate of melting continues, the summertime Arctic could be totally free of ice by 2030..................

"This summer we've got all this open water and added heat going into the ocean. That is going to make it much harder for the ice to grow back."

Changes in wind and ocean circulation patterns can help reduce sea ice extent, but Dr Serreze said the main culprit was man-made global warming.

"The rules are starting to change and what's changing the rules is the input of greenhouse gases."

Three years ago scientist thought that the Arctic would not be ice free until the end of the century,now they say by 2030. This is likely to be the result in less than 23 years.

The rising temperatures are likely to cause the melting of at least half the Arctic sea ice by the end of the century. A significant portion of the Greenland ice sheet—which contains enough water to raise the worldwide sea level by about 23 feet (about 7 meters)—would also melt.

The consequences of such a massive meltdown of northern ice would be dramatic, according to the study.

• Low-lying coastal areas in Florida and Louisiana could be flooded by the sea. A 1.5 feet (50-centimeter) rise in sea level could cause the coastline to move 150 feet (45 meters) inland, resulting in substantial economic, social, and environmental impact in low-lying areas.

• The health and food security of some indigenous peoples would be threatened, challenging the survival of some cultures.

• Should the Arctic become ice-free in summer, it is likely that polar bears and some seal species would become extinct.

 It now seems that climate change is happening much faster than has been predicted. Still are leaders are not taking the necessary steps to prevent catastrophe. It  might take a revolution to turn the world around.

The Federal Government has put global warming at the top of APEC's agenda.

But Malaysia's Trade Minister says Australia lacks the credentials to deal with the issue because it still refuses to sign the Kyoto Protocol and has accused Australia of "hijacking" the debate.

Downer doesn't like the truth, Australia would be taken more seriously on climate change, if it signed the Kyoto Protocol. 

Examination of the global surface temperature over the latter part of the 20th century shows that in fact the temperature rose about 0.5 degrees between the early 1970s and 2000. Considering that global temperatures had, if anything, been falling in the decades leading up to the early 1970s, Sawyer's accurate prediction of the reversal of this trend, and of the magnitude of the subsequent warming, is perhaps the most remarkable long-range forecast ever made.

Sawyer's warning was ignored 35 years ago. We can no longer afford  to ignore it.

 

“There is not truth - unless we take back Australia from the "New Order". “

Ernest, Rudd and the labor party are a willing part of the new order. Their “me too” approach to virtually every new order policy, including the chip mill is ample proof of their veracity and direction. The only way to take Australia back from the “New Order”, is to remove the lib/lab coalition and change the system. However it's useless to shut the gate when the horse has bolted in regard to climate change and the environment, the gate should have been shut 30 years ago. Now it can't be shut, until we change the system, now all that can be done is prepare for the inevitable consequences. We are seeing the beginnings now, with east coast storms of summer intensities and huge rain falls, whilst drought ravages most other parts of the country. Sth Australia introducing fire bans in the middle of winter, temperatures in Tasmania over the last few days and at this time for the last 2 years, being in the mid 20's with hot blustering northerlies, drying everything out in hours and fuelling the coming fire period.

The gate to catastrophe for the planet and the human race is being firmly held open in this country, by the lib/lab coalition and the current political and bureaucratic system. Whilst the gate to a viable sustainable future of environmental stability and growth, is being held shut by those supporting the new order through political parties and the incompetent political and bureaucratic system.

Mark Latham must be smiling at last.  He tried to tell us - "How does Howard get away with it?" No one was listening!

In our Westminster system of government, the power of both the Senate and the House of Representatives being in the same hands, was always a possibility and would have been considered by the Federation Fathers.

They would not have contemplated someone like Howard however, using the powers that be to create an unaccountable autocracy.

We should also remember that Bob Brown's "Accountability" bill for governments was defeated on party grounds and ALL Liberals and Nationalists voted against it.  Including "Judas" Joyce.

Yet all members of the Australian Labor Party, the Australian Greens and the Australian Democrats voted FOR it.

The Howard "New Order" plans to destroy that document which will leave us as the only industrialised nation in the world without a Bill of Rights. 

It matters not that the Americans, who he tries to emulate, are enormously proud of their Bill of Rights.  But that would protect the rights of every person and the existence of the States.

When you think of the power of the U.S. and their ability to manipulate elections - we have to "keep our eyes on the ball" whenever the spiteful little schoolboy calls the election.

There is not truth - unless we take back Australia from the "New Order".

NE OUBLIE.

So wrong in they eyes of Yvo de Boer that he personally contacted the Age to make a correction.

[extract]

"(Mr Downer) wrote that the Kyoto Protocol barely covers a third of global emissions, which in fact is not the case," he said. "The Kyoto Protocol covers more than 70 per cent of global emissions. It's true that only a limited group of industrialised countries have legally binding emissions limits under the protocol, but the much larger group of developing countries, including big countries in the Asian region, do have the obligation under the protocol to undertake … programs to limit their emissions."

I wasn't too far off in my post "These GUNNs do fire", by predicting another committee to report after the election.

As Malcom Turnbull finds himself wedged instead of the Australian Labor Party, he (Howard) delays his responsibility under the guise of caring about what the people think.

Let's all tell him a few facts:

• As multiple polls have shown, Howard "never ever" cares about what the people think.
• The people in the "Council's area" are very much against the Pulp Mill. Will Howard intervene and hold a plebiscite? He has set the precedent for a "mandate" - but, is he a hypocrite?
• The CFMEU is pre-emptive in aguing that jobs will be lost.  No jobs have yet been created and since they turned against Mark Latham in 2004, 300 jobs have been lost in GUNN'S. According to Bob Brown on Lateline 29/8/07, the predicted 280 jobs are even less than that.
• Howard's WorkChoices does not lend itself to those jobs being filled by Australians anyway.  Remember the 457 visas?
• If the proposed 6 week report becomes a reality and it finds for the Mill - that will not make the people happy.
• If the report abandons the project and Turnbull (Howard) has the guts to refuse it - GUNN's have "Threatened" to take their polluting mill to an Asian country.  Let's wave them off.

"Any job is better than none" for Australians says Howard.  How many crimes has he committed against the Australian people under the cover of that phrase?

The Howard government has tried to make the middle to lower income workers of our nation utter beggars in our own country.

The Howard/Hockey system of permitting Corporations to pollute our air and water and to gouge our natural resources for huge profits is well over the top.

They claim that it must be - so that the mostly foreign Corporations  will be charitable and give SOME jobs to Australians - is a disgusting Howardism.

So Malcolm and the CFMEU - maintain the status quo and give these polluters a shock to their "jobs" blackmail.

NE OUBLIE.

 

If ZeroGen gets the green light -- and does not sell its technology and expertise to other players -- the $1.3 billion project will become a world leader. It plans a 100megawatt coal-fired demonstration power plant fitted with "carbon capture and storage" technology allowing up to 400,000 tonnes of CO2 each year to be piped about 200km and stored underground instead of released into the atmosphere.

The ZeroGen plant could be in use by 2011 and potentially modified at a later stage to produce commercial quantities of hydrogen or ammonia.

The Qld labor government has helped the development of the technology that could prove the viability of carbon capture and storage technology.

Graham Reed, program manager for the Centre for Low Emission Technology, yesterday said ZeroGen had made "a very significant step in so far as this project and Queensland are concerned".

Peter Cook, chief executive of the Co-operative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies, also welcomed the ZeroGen development, describing it as "a first, cautious and totally appropriate step in the process".

The ZeroGen plant's critics, including at one point federal Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane, argue that it is too small at 100mw and will not be commercially viable. Mr Macfarlane would not comment yesterday on the status of ZeroGen's application for federal funding.

But ZeroGen remains several years ahead of its comparable rivals, including the US-based FutureGen project, and is starting to be assessed by coal companies, whose financial support is crucial to its success.

As usual the Federal government is critical and offers no support. 

 

According to Malcolm Turnbull, (the once bankrupted Millionaire) the yet to be built Tasmanian Pulp Mill par excellence, would be well within the World standard for the deadly Dioxins.

That is for "Pulp Mills of its kind"?

Yet Kerry O'Brien in his 7:30 report, gave the expert's opinions that the Dioxin the proposed mill will dump into the environment, is equal to 80% of the total of that created by 47 pulp mills in Sweden.

If we harken back to 2004, Mark Latham, correctly and courageously in my opinion, backed Bob Brown regarding the destruction of the beautiful Tasmanian forest - by GUNNs.

Howard, forever the lying opportunist, jumped in to an unlikely Union meeting of workers and said he would protect their jobs by allowing that eco disaster.

His performance as always, targeted the hip pocket and "jobs". I believe it gained him very important Senate seats for which all Australians are now paying dearly.

So, once again the "apple Isle" is a cause for concern.

Howard has worries about his marginal seats and will throw our money around like there is no tomorrow.

No matter how many times Turnbull cries "De States - De States" he cannot dodge the responsibility of the final say being his.  How about another useless Howard Committee to report after the election?

Without his imprematur the GUNN's pulp mill cannot go ahead.

The destructive effect on the environment would be avoided.

The effect on the workers should be nil because, as I understand it, no one has been employed to man the new Mill anyway.

The Senate seats won by the Liberals in 2004 are not up for grabs this time, so that issue is also a non-event.

Malcolm - maintain the status quo and Mr. Cousins will be happy too.

NE OUBLIE.

Did that idiot really say that?

This is after another year of  shennanigans down in  Tasmania over the disappearing carbon sinks there. "Decisions made exclusively the basis of commercial factors " is the real mantra of our age. Except that none of them seem to be able to work out the real factors that comprise this, as regards to conflict of interest between a company and wider society.

It can be great for a company to piddle filth into a pristine environment , but how good for  the community that carries the parasite, when other producers are ruined and the bills begin to roll in for the later hospitals, hospitalisations and  clean-ups?

Richard:  Hey Paul, how's life at the other end of Brompton?  It's time we caught up for a cuppa?
 

No one’s doing anything about climate change, not even the growingly aware public. Everyone's waiting for someone to provide the answers, or do it for them, rather than they make the effort. We have all the technology, resources and reasons to act. But this has been talked about for the last 30 years and it has just gets worse and worse. Downer, like all those in power, has no interest in change, unless it’s towards more for the rich at any cost.

I expect by the time people realise what's happening, it will be too late for them to act. As history shows us, people can see things like war coming their way, but until it actually rolls over them, think it won't happen to them, so they stay and do nothing, just hope. The only way to stop it is to get rid of the current political and bureaucratic system, driving climate change and supporting corporate market and profit, driven control.

David, I'm so astonished at Downer's gall that the best I can do is offer this quote from John Ralston Saul's The End of Globalism:

Ideology, like theatre, is dependent on the willing suspension of disbelief. At the core of every ideology lies the worship of a bright new future, with only failure in the immediate past. But once the suspension goes, willingness converts into suspicion - the suspicion of the betrayed. Our brilliant leaders abruptly appear naive, even ridiculous.

Surely the foreign policies of the Howard "New Order" are only mirror-images of the Bush Administration?

Gary Nairn, the Liberal member for Eden-Monaro claims that they Liberal/Nationalist government have not decided on Nuclear Reactors.  Fair dinkum.

Yet the media has reported more than enough information to contradict that statement.

Bush undoubtedly wants his companies to build Nuclear Reactors in Australia and to create a world Nuclear Waste facility for that dangerous product.  You see, the American people have forbidden him to dump the toxic material in their country - so why not Howard's?

Howard has even openly stated that these Reactors will be situated as decided by commercial interests! No poll needed there eh?

As I have stated before Gary Nairn gave his half-hearted excuse - Eden Monaro has a welter of lakes and plenty of access to the Pacific Ocean.

Wherever the "Commercial Interests" decide to build them - a Howard government would concede!

Nationalist Mark Vaile (of AWB infamy) tries to copy his Liberal masters with rhetoric by saying it will take years!  So what?  Does that make it less dangerous and toxic?

So a vote for Howard's "New Order" means we have all mandated:

• Nuclear Reactors and their positioning.
• Climate Change will be ignored.
• Legislate to allow Nuclear Australia while he has the Senate.
• World Nuclear Waste will be deposited in the N.T.
•  Broader and more "slavish" WorkChoices".
• Every white and blue colour worker will have individual AWAs.
• Incomes, employment security and a living wage will be a thing of the past.
• The regions will get (if their lucky) cheap and slow Wireless Broadband.
• Public health and Hospital funding will be further diminished out in favour of private enterprise.
• Private Enterprise will control the water supplies from the Murray-Darling and possibly the Snowy River.
• There will be a form of conscription to maintain sufficient military to serve as U.S. garrison troops in occupied countries.
• Reservists will be used overseas in the interim.
• Small businesses will be under-priced out of business for the benefit of the Monopolies of Globalisation.

And most of all the absolute fact that Howard and his robots will "never ever" keep their collective word.

And as Abbott would say "that's a rock solid iron clad promise"!

 
NE OUBLIE.

 

 

 

 

There appears to be a widening split within the Coalition over the development of nuclear power plants in Australia.

Prime Minister John Howard says commercial investors will decide where 25 proposed nuclear power plants are built.

But Deputy Prime Minister and north-east New South Wales MP Mark Vaile says residents should have a say - possibly through a binding local plebiscite.

"We can say up front that local communities will have a direct say on whether or not any development takes place in their area," he said.

The Opposition's Anthony Albanese says the Nationals are trying to walk both sides of the street.

Howard says democracy is OK on council boundaries but isn't so sure about democracy when it comes to putting nuclear power stations in our backyards. The man is such a hypocrite.

Source: http://abc.net.au/ Television.

 

Kerry O'Brien interviews John Howard of Surplus.  21 August 2007.

 

 

JOHN HOWARD: Well Kerry, what we're going to do is out of future surpluses - and these are surpluses that will arise from the end of the current financial year and thereafter - we're going to invest in a few fund and out of that we will invest in economic and social infrastructure. We will, in the time ahead, not necessarily before the election, [cute?] lay out some of the criteria but we're dealing here with a medium-term fiscal strategy. We're not talking here about short-term investments. I mean this fund will not become operational until just under a year from now and then it will take a while to accumulate earnings, so you're not talking about expenditure out of this fund 

 

KERRY O'BRIEN: So what are you calling this fund?

JOHN HOWARD: Well I, we haven't decided on a name, it's not necessary because we don't at this stage have anything to invest in it.

KERRY O'BRIEN: But you've got the Future Fund -

JOHN HOWARD: Yeah.

KERRY O'BRIEN: You've got the higher education fund -

JOHN HOWARD: The higher education fund and then we've got the health fund -

KERRY O'BRIEN: And the health fund.

JOHN HOWARD: Yes, because they are, they are funds that in the case of the Future Fund and the higher education fund they've been established. In the case of the health fund, it will be established out of part of the proceeds of last year's budget surplus. But I'm -

KERRY O'BRIEN: What sort of things will you invest in?

JOHN HOWARD: Well we, I would certainly look at what I'd call long-term national infrastructure projects.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Can you name a few, a few areas where you might.

JOHN HOWARD: It could be in areas like rail. It could be in some road projects and what I'm talking about here is only using the earnings, I'm not talking about using any of the corpus. And the important thing about this announcement is that it's a very conservative medium-term fiscal strategy. We're in fact imposing a limit on ourselves, a straight jacket if you like, on ourselves rather than establishing a slush fund and we're not talking about money being available to be announced in the next couple of weeks. We're talking about a much longer-term thing than that.

KERRY O'BRIEN: So that fits the Mark Textor strategy of bagging the states. Mark Textor told you in that leaked information that this is what you had to do to win back support, amongst other things, to, quote, "emphasise that the Commonwealth is bailing out ineffective, inefficient States"?

JOHN HOWARD: I've been acting in areas of State failure for a couple of years. My attitude in this is simply that if it works by leaving everything to the States that's good. If it works through cooperative federalism that's good. But if in areas where plainly what the Commonwealth has to do is to bypass the States and deal directly with local communities, then I'm willing to do it. I call it aspirational nationalism and I think that's what people want. People don't -

KERRY O'BRIEN: So it's just, it's just a fortunate coincidence that that view falls in line with what Marks Textor's telling you you've got to do to claw back the polls?

JOHN HOWARD: Well Kerry, the reality is that I started doing things of this kind some time ago, had nothing to do with polling.

Do any of us really trust the Howard "New Order?"

I'm expecting the US-Australia joint contribution to the War On Climate Change to be the reduction in emissions generated by the provision of reactors and uranium to India.   Bush is going to need something to announce (or pre-announce) at APEC.

Any takers?