(We) can do better

By Earth's Newsdesk, a project of Ecological Internet (www.ecologicalinternet.org) by Dr. Glen Barry, +1 (920) 776-1075Friday 15 September 08. Originally published here.

- Ecological Internet warns converging economic, climate, food and fuel crises are symptoms of massive global ecological bubble, and that without ecosystems there can be no economy

(Earth) -- Current economic difficulties are largely caused by failing global ecosystems and resource scarcity, and are not an excuse to reduce environmental commitments, warns Ecological Internet. The bursting of the mortgage and financial bubbles, and food and energy price increases, are the logical and inevitable economic consequences of over-population, inequitable and unreasonable consumption, and unsustainable economic growth. Environmentalism is the solution to, not the cause of, economic hard times.

"The global growth machine is seizing up because it is hitting ecological limits and because of its own greed. Current global economic difficulties must not stop urgent ecological measures -- like dramatic emission reductions and natural habitat protection and restoration -- necessary to maintain a habitable Earth. Without ecosystems there can be no economic recovery," warns Dr. Glen Barry.

Sufficient environmental policies find it difficult to achieve political support even in times of rapid economic growth, yet this growth is the primary factor driving greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental ills. Human needs for water, air, food and housing are no less in hard times. More than ever ecological sustainability depends critically upon establishing a steady state economy, whereby production is right-sized to not diminish natural capital. Whole industries like coal and ancient forest logging will be eliminated even as new economic opportunities emerge in solar energy and ecological restoration.

This economic cooling may offer a welcome respite to reconsider the growth at any cost madness devouring the Earth’s life giving ecosystems. Growth and livelihoods based upon over resource use from dwindling ecosystems, that mostly benefit the elites, are a dangerous, unprecedented "ecological bubble" that threatens not only widespread economic hardship, but the future of civilization and terrible human suffering.

"In the mortgage bubble's bursting, we see signs of ecological bubbles to come. The world is not only at peak oil, but at or near peak water, land, climate, oceans, food and usable energy. The human enterprise and each global citizen's family size and consumption aspirations must be downsized to a scale appropriate to ecosystem limits. Or the Earth herself, with the assistance of the human created economic system, will do so brutally. Even the best high-yield financial instrument is ultimately only paper and cannot be eaten," observes Dr. Barry.

For further information : ecologicalinternet.org, phone Dr. Glen Barry on +1 (920) 776-1075, or e-mail info [AT] ecologicalinternet org

Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, catholic Italian economist, writes a long article, – where else ?- in the über catholic newspaper The Osservatore Romano, the official voice of the Vatican Curia. It starts with the following incipit:

"We should have the courage to affirm that the fragility and vulnerability of the Western economy are strictly connected, if not the cause, of the demographic crisis, which started 30 years ago and that presides over the sudden collapse of the rate of population growth, from more than a yearly 7% to almost zero. This crisis has provoked indirectly larger and more rigid public expenditure with the consequent difficulty of reducing tax revenues and, directly, a minor growth of the financial wealth produced by families savings."

Dr. Tedeschi, a respected economist, places the responsibility in the hands of insufficiently fertile Western couples for producing the Perfect Storm: current recession, banks crashes, underemployment, Stock exchange and market collapse. Maybe also, like GW, kidney stones, droughts, unusual rain, hurricanes, desertification, snoring and so on.

Unflinchingly, this dangerous propagandist for the Church's outdated doctrine of unrestricted rabbity activity, continues to ask rhetorically, why and how this crisis is connected to the demographic issue?

He delivers the usual lesson on population ageing, which we have all heard before, but adding a very sensitive argument: the plight of the Family, which has lost much of its strength (in numbers):

"The drop of family wealth has been of 2/3, while the vocation to consume of a growing portion of families has forced them to fall into debt. … The process (of running into debt) will worsen because of the demographic crisis... Imagine future scenarios: the hope of using the liquidity and wealth created in the big Asiatic powers like China and India are to be reappraised. These economies which generate a growth rate of their financial activities of more than 10-15% and that have in the past sustained the USA's public deficit, in the future will invest in the home market or to acquire a competitive autonomy by acquiring access to resources.

"To correct the demographic deficit by a politic of steady import of immigrants doesn't produce immediate or even medium term compensation. Leaving aside the problem of solidarity, immigration is necessary for acquiring a growing workforce, but for a long time will be represented by only a fraction of immigrants from European countries, who have a better capacity to generate wealth, but a limited capacity to contribute to the social expenditure.

"To increase fertility is an excellent programme, but it is too long term and its results will be seen only in 25/30 years. However, if families will be stimulated to have courage and bring forth a greater number of children, they will represent an engine of wealth creation, a capacities to overcome difficulties, because they will feel more responsible, they will save more and invest more ...."

from The Osservatore Romano, 11th September 2008

Now, we can together have fun in picking out the contradictions, the ignorance, the superficiality, from this masterpiece Maybe it is too easy.

For example, starting with the Stock exchange crisis, it started in the USA, the country in the Western world which is enjoying – so to speak - major population growth...

And the more the number of children per family, the less opportunity there will be to spend money.

But Dr. Tedeschi lives in another world and he hears only the bells of S.Peter in his head.

My Thanks to Ilan Goldman who posted the extracts from the Australian Senate Hansard on 17 Spetember 2008 to the Yahoo PublicPopForum mailing and to Gloria O'Conner who drew Ilan's attention to this. - JS

The Senate Hansard from which the following were extracted can be downloaded in a 795K pdf file at http://www.aph.gov.au/HANSARD/senate/dailys/ds160908.pdf. The initial #question">question can be found on pages 32-33 of the PDF document, which are actually numbered as pages 18-19. Senator Brown's subsequent #speech">speech can be found on pages 41-42 of the PDF document, which are numbered as pages 27-28

Detail of "Overpopulation" by John Piltre at http://www.progressiveart.com/pitre_page2.htm

#question" id="question">Population Policy (question without notice)

Tuesday,16 September 2008

Senator BOB BROWN (2.33 pm)---My question without notice is to Senator Evans, representing the Prime Minister. Does the government have a population policy? Can the minister tell the Senate whether population growth is essential for economic growth, or is that assumption just plain wrong? If population growth is inevitably needed, is that not an ultimate recipe for planetary breakdown?

Senator CHRIS EVANS---I thank Senator Brown for the question. I think population policy is an important issue confronting Australia and we actually need to have a mature debate over the next couple of years about the development of population policy.

Senator Abetz---I'd say you need to have one.

Senator CHRIS EVANS---Senator Abetz, you keep on interjecting---

Senator Abetz interjecting---

The PRESIDENT---Order! Senator Abetz, we can do without your interjections during question time.

Senator CHRIS EVANS---I actually think it is a serious issue. It was discussed at the 2020 conference and raised by lot of the delegates and it is an issue that the government has been engaging on, particularly in relation to the Treasurer's role, the housing minister's role and of course the environment and climate change ministers' roles. We are working together to try and bring together a broader policy approach in this area.

In terms of my own area, on coming to office I found that the previous government set the immigration planning levels on an annual basis. They just picked a figure annually and there was no context to the selection of the figure and no longer term planning. In our first budget this year the cabinet agreed to my bringing forward next year a longer term planning framework for immigration to this country, which is in part an attempt to deal with that broader population question. We think we need a longer planning cycle. We think we need to deal with those broader considerations. At the moment we have a skills shortage in this country as a result of the previous government's failure to invest in education and training and we are looking to build our capacity by training our own people, but in the short term we do have a need for labour and we are trying to address that.

One of the things I would point to is the changing demographics of the nation. We know that over the period 2010 to 2020 more people will retire than will join the workforce. If you like, 2010 marks the tipping point in the retirement of the baby boomers, and that will exceed the numbers of young people entering the workforce. That is not a temporary thing; this is a longterm demographic shift. It will not rectify itself. We will have a shrinking native-born labour force to supply a growing economy and an ageing population. So there are big challenges in the demographics area, and part of the solution to that will be an increase in migration and, I think, an increase in the overall population, because we will need more workers to support the population and we will need more workers to provide services to those ageing as the cohort of those ageing increases. But there are issues about environmental sustainability that need to be taken into account and there are issues about housing that need to be taken into account.

I suppose your question, Senator Brown, implied that somehow we should respond in a negative way. I think the way to respond is to say that we have a climate change problem and we have to address that problem. Whatever the size of the population, we will have a climate change problem. This government is immediately trying to tackle that climate change problem. We are trying to tackle the problem of water. All of those things need to be taken head-on. Those problems are not fixed by reducing our population or ending immigration to this country. We are serious about housing, we are serious about climate change and we are serious about the environment, but we face other challenges about the workforce and about our demographics. What we are trying to do is bring all that together so that the government has a broad view about these challenges and how we respond. I think we are making good progress on that, and certainly in my portfolio we are very much focusing on those broader issues.

Senator BOB BROWN---Mr President, I have a supplementary question. I thank the minister for the seriousness with which he answered that question. I return again to core question that I asked: is economic growth predicated upon population growth or is that a myth?

Senator CHRIS EVANS---That is a pretty big question to answer in one minute. What I would say to you is that I think economic growth is vital to Australia's future. I think that in the medium term we will need a larger population than we currently have. I think we will have to run an immigration program to deal with the demographic shift and the drop in the workforce. But we also need to tackle those pressing environmental and other problems. The Greens keep raising with me, for instance, the question of climate change refugees and what we are doing to accommodate them. To accommodate them we would have to increase our immigration program. All these things are clearly linked. We are very much focused on the broader population policy issues, but I think we will need continuing economic growth, and I think we will see a continuing modest increase in our population levels over coming years.

#speech" id="speech">Population Policy (speech in response to Senator Evans' answer)

Tuesday,16 September 2008

Senator BOB BROWN (Tasmania---Leader of the Australian Greens) (3.30 pm)---I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Senator Evans) to a question without notice asked by Senator Bob Brown today relating to economic and population growth.

I am grateful to Senator Evans for responding to a question that is very rarely raised in this parliament let alone taken on and answered at some length---and that is the question of the role of population in our future. The former Treasurer, Peter Costello, said that population is destiny. I would agree with that, although I think I am coming from a different point of view.

We are on a planet in which there are now 6½ thousand million people, whereas when I was a lad it was half that amount. At the change from the 19th century to the 20th century there were 2,000 million people, which is less than a third of today's population. And we know that by mid-century the population is going to be 9,000 million to 10,000 million people. The world advice is that that simply cannot be sustained. We are now looking at rapidly deteriorating food stores on the planet. We are down to fewer than 50 days of flow-on food availability to meet any great emergency, and the number of people facing starvation around the planet right now is in the millions and increasing rapidly, particularly in Africa but also in parts of Asia, like North Korea.

Because energy drives agriculture, and with the onrush of climate change, the very slow growth in pro -ductivity compared to population, and peak oil, we will be facing a mammoth, chaotic social outcome of too many people with too few resources on the planet in the lifetime of some of us here and certainly in the lifetime of our children. We are obliged to look at this. That is why I asked the government whether it had a population policy, and I do not believe it does. I do not believe the opposition does. The Greens have one which is very general.

I think it is incumbent upon us all to say what we think about the fundamental supposition that the economy needs a growing population if it is to be sustainable. I think that is a fundamental error but it drives all economic policymaking at government level around the world at the moment. If you take the idea that you must have a growing population to have a healthy economy then the planet will implode because the logic of that is that, if the numbers of humans on the planet keep increasing---and we are the biggest, most marauding group of mammals there has ever been on the planet---to just bring other people up to our level of consumption our current population projections say that we will need not one but three or four planets with the resource base of the earth to sustain human population by mid-century. I am talking about 40 years away. It is simply not sustainable.

We as responsible politicians and representatives of the interests of the future of this nation, if not the planet, have to debate this matter. I believe we have to come to the conclusion that we have to devise economic growth that is not predicated on population growth. If not, we have to state at what level we will stop growing the economy because there are too many people. That is an inevitable outcome of the theory that you must have population growth if you are going to have economic wellbeing. It is a fundamental part of the political discourse and yet it is missing from public debate.

One of my major reasons for raising this question is that I get asked about it all over the country. It does not matter what you are talking about, when you go into any size audience somebody will come up and say, 'What about population growth?' So here I am asking that question in the Senate because so many Australians want it debated.

Question agreed to.

What you can do:

Contact Senator Bob Brown to congratulate him for having raised this critical issue in the Senate. His contact details are:
e: ebony.bennett[AT]aph gov au www.bobbrown.org.au
m: 0409 164 603 | p: (02) 6277 3170 | f: (02) 6277 3185

Contents: #OFarrellPilloried">O'Farrell pilloried, #DebateIgnored">Parliamentary debate ignored, #EarlierMisreporting">Earlier misreporting: Iemma exhorted to ignore Labor conference, public will, #WhatCanBeDone">What can be done about this?.

Analysis of the reporting of electricity privatisation initiatives in New South Wales brings disturbing confirmation that the major Australian newsmedia does not accurately report essential facts on issues of vital concern to us. Indeed, it often acts as a conduit for propaganda against our best interest.

Throughout NSW's struggle against a push to privatise electricity, barely any of the newsmedia paid regard to the fact that the NSW Government had no mandate whatsoever to sell electricity assets. Facts acknowledged in hardly any of the reports included:

• In the face of relentless propaganda in favour of privatisation, opposition to privatisation stood at between 79% and 86% according to opinion polls.
• Morris Iemma had explicitly promised not to privatise prior to the March 2007 elections.
• In the 1999 state elections NSW electors voted against the Liberal/National Opposition which stood for full privatisation.

#OFarrellPilloried" id="OFarrellPilloried">O'Farrell pilloried

On 27 August, the day before the privatisation legislation was to be put before the NSW Upper House The Australian's Imre Saluzinsky shared with his readers his high expectations of NSW state parliamentary Liberal Party and leader of the state Opposition Barry O'Farrell in his article of 27 August "O'Farrell won't do a Debnam". There were, of course, those in the Liberal party opposed to privatisation, who were described by Saluzinsky, incredibly, as, at once, both "machiavellian" and "conspiracy buffs to the bitter end" who apparently had paranoid delusions that Labor would use the proceeds of the sale to pork-barrel their way back into office in 2011. Nevertheless, he predicted that O'Farrell and the Opposition would come good:

O'Farrell can either outsmart himself with such conspiratorial thinking, or demonstrate the Coalition is ready to govern. On previous form, he'll choose the latter path.

In response to this article, one reader responded:

Where does political morality lie in your equation, Imre? Both major parties ruled out power privatisation before the last election, and merely months later it becomes a 'must do'? Through their mismanagement Iemma and Costa need the money from the power sell-off for their political survival. Handing them the keys to the vault by aiding and abetting their political fraud will only prolong an inept Labor government. That is the reality facing the entire business community in NSW.

Saluzinsky did not answer.

When Barry O'Farrell failed to follow Saluzinsky's script, two days later Saluzinsky turned on him with a vengeance. On Friday 29 August in "O'Farrell's shame worse than Iemma's", He wrote:

The collapse of the latest reform push is a condemnation of the political class in NSW.

It shows the nation's largest state - over a third of the national economy - in the grip of reform paralysis. And it leaves the credibility of both Iemma and NSW Opposition Leader Barry O'Farrell in tatters.

... O'Farrell shifted ground. He sought independent advice, which backed the sale strategy, then he ignored it, preferring to maintain a united front with the Nationals rather than securing the state's electricity supply.

The Australian's editorial "NSW Labor and Libs are unfit for power" appeared critical of both the Government and the Opposition, however the latter was the main recipient of its venom. It began:

NSW Opposition Leader Barry O'Farrell has just done the unthinkable. By scuttling Labor Premier Morris Iemma's push to privatise the NSW electricity sector, he has raised the serious question of whether the Liberal and National parties can ever be fit to run the nation's largest state. After 13 years of do-nothing and scandal-soaked government from Labor, it is truly remarkable that the Coalition can't bring itself to support the one positive item on the Iemma agenda.

Here, the editorial writer is hardly being fair to the state Labor Government. Former Premier Bob Carr tried earnestly to foist electricity privatisation on the Labor Party in 1998 only to have it rejected by the Labor Party conference. In 2006 the Iemma Government attempted to lead the Federal and Victorian governments to privatise the Snowy Hydro scheme. Iemma could hardly be held to blame if the Howard Government, faced with a public outcry and the late Federal Independent MP Peter Andren's determined opposition, decided to pull out the rug from under privatisation. Clearly, in terms of The Australian's own world view, the Carr and Iemma governments had attempted to do other 'positive' things, which The Australian should have acknowledged.

This year, Iemma went one step further than Carr was prepared to go. He ignored the Labor Party conference vote. He also ignored public opinion and his own 2007 election commitment. What else, short of declaring martial law and jailing NSW upper house members opposed to privatisation, would the The Australian have had Iemma and Costa do?

The editorial goes on to ask, "And for what?"

Anyone placing their trust in the judgement and good will of the editorial writer would have gained the impression that O'Farrell had not provided any justification for his actions. In fact, he had supplied justification in a media release that day. Upper House leaders Michael Gallacher (Liberal Party) and Duncan Gay (National Party) both also provided reasoned and detailed arguments against the privatisation legislation in the Parliamentary debate before it was abruptly closed by an embarrassed Government.

Whilst the editorial was prepared to trust a Government it had itself labelled as 'inept', O'Farrell was not. In his media release, he wrote:

Furthermore, the Iemma Labor Government has an appalling record of dealing with the private sector ? it has failed the public in deals ranging from the Cross City Tunnel to the building of the new Bathurst Hospital.

Given their record of incompetence, Morris Iemma and Labor can?t be trusted to deliver a good result for taxpayers and consumers.

To many, these would seem reasonable concerns. In addition O'Farrell pointed out that there was uncertainty about the implications of the Federal Government's carbon trading scheme and that privatisation had not been put by Iemma to the NSW electors in 2007.

The editorial then moved on to stronger ground:

It is not even clear that Mr O'Farrell's obstruction passes the cynic's test.

Indeed, it had not. That test was being passed with flying colours by the editorial writer himself. The majority of the state Labor Party Parliamentary caucus, which had resolved to ram through the privatisation legislation in defiance of popular opinion, and the state Labor Party conference, has also performed exceedingly well in this regard.

In one small sense, the Opposition's stance may have been due to its instincts for self-preservation, if only because of the Murdoch press's own record of unprincipled opportunism. Had privatisation proceeded, it is hard to imagine that The Australian would not have quietly forgotten the Iemma Government's legendary incompetence and, instead, have begun to sing its praises once more.

The editorial writer then assailed the reader with facts and statistics that would have left him/her in no doubt that O'Farrell, or anyone else who may have wanted to hesitate for longer than five minutes before allowing privatisation to proceed, was stark raving mad.

[Because O'Farrell] "continues to ignore economics 101 ... the Australian would be unable to recommend a vote for a change of government in NSW."

This begs a number of obvious questions: If sound economic practice really required electricity privatisation, why couldn't the policy simply have been put to the electorate in March 2007? Why had it proven so hard to make the public, the trade unions and the NSW state Labor Party see this? Why had the public rejected privatisation in 1999 and remained adamantly opposed to it all along? Clearly neither The Australian nor Iemma deserved the public they had been stuck with.

Murdoch's Daily Telegraph editorialised on 31 August :

Mr O'Farrell ... also has a huge question mark hanging over his head after his performance last week.

...

Mr O'Farrell could not resist the lure of a cheap political victory to wound his opponent when NSW was crying out for some far-sighted leadership.

Presumably by 'NSW', the editorialist meant the small shrill chorus of bankers and investors.

O'Farrell and the NSW state Opposition received additional drubbings in reporting over the following days: "How the people of NSW were sold out" (SMH, 30 Aug) an opinion piece by Premier Morris Iemma. (A google search listed the story with a more provocative title: "How the power of one treacherous leader sold out the people of NSW". Clearly an editor somewhere thought better of that title), "O'Farrell backflip on power sell-off" (The Australian, 1 Sep)."Hopelessly devoted to self-interest" (Sun-Herald, 31 Aug), "O'Farrell's shame worse than Iemma's" by Imre Saluzinksy (The Australian, 29 Aug), "Luddite Liberals" (The Australian, Aug) by John Durie, "Barry O'Farrell misses a chance on electricity" (Sunday Telegraph, Aug. 08)

In Murdoch's Melbourne Herald Sun newspaper, one article, which seems to have since disappeared from the web, even referred to Barry O'Farrell as "O'Fool".

Against this torrent of condemnation O'Farrell was able to write an opinion piece on 1 September in defence of himself in the (Fairfax press) Sydney Morning Herald.

#DebateIgnored" id="DebateIgnored">Parliamentary debate ignored

Astonishingly, even the debate in Parliament which had been recalled at a cost of $500,000 to the NSW taxpayer was ignored by electricity privatisation reporting. Facts revealed in the debate, but unreported in the media, included:

• Prior to the March 2007 elections "the Iemma Government issued emphatic denials that any such sale would take place". On 20 February 2007 Michael Costa stated "There are no plans to sell our retail electricity businesses". (Upper House Opposition leader Gallacher's speech)
• On 9 May 2007 Premier Morris Iemma, when referring to the Owen Review, ruled out any "sale of electricity generation, transmission or distribution."(Gallacher)
• In a Sydney Morning Herald article dated 25 May 2007 Iemma was reported as stating in a letter to Unions NSW that "The privatisation of the State Government-owned energy companies is not on our agenda".(Gallacher)
• On 23 November 2006 Michael Costa stated "There is no energy crisis in New South Wales - In fact, New South Wales has surplus energy."(Gallacher)
• Treasurer Michael Costa, as Secretary of the NSW Labor Council, had in 1998 and 1999 moved motions in opposition to former Premier Bob Carr's privatisation legislation(Gallacher)
• For 13 years up until the 2007 elections Treasure Costa and his predecessor Egan had boasted that NSW had healthy budget surpluses due to their sound financial management. "Treasurer Michael Costa told New South Wales taxpayers before the last election that they had nothing to worry about." (Gay)
• The Owen Inquiry report, which is the Government's principle justification for privatisation, has never been debated in the NSW Upper House. (Kaye)

In this light, why had the media not turned on Iemma and Costa, if it was truly concerned with reporting the truth?

#EarlierMisreporting" id="EarlierMisreporting">Earlier misreporting: Iemma exhorted to ignore Labor conference, public will

Monday 5 May, 2008: The Australian's editorial "Rudd has a stake in NSW power sell-off", published after the NSW state conference voted 702 to 107 against privatisation, urges the NSW Parliamentary Labor Party to ignore the conference.

"Kevin Rudd has a lot riding on NSW Premier Morris Iemma's having the courage to defy Labor's state council and push ahead with the $10 billion privatisation of the state's electricity industry. To his credit, Mr Iemma says he is standing firm. ...

If electricity privatisation can be defeated because unions representing a few thousand electricity workers don't like it, how difficult would it be to stare down union interests to overhaul health and education?

...

The electricity debate is a classic example of the labour movement attempting to bully the government into making a decision that is not for the greater good. Mr Iemma must demonstrate that he is prepared to govern for all people and ignore the demands of state conference."

The editorial writer did not seem to have a problem with fact that 79%-86% of "all people" on whose behalf Iemma and Costa were supposedly governing, happened to agree with the "unions representing a few thousand electricity workers" and state conference.

7 May 2008: Murdoch's Sydney Daily Telegraph gloated at the Labor Parliamentary caucus's defiance of NSW public opinion in "Iemma's grin of victory over power industry sale":

"The rare record of an exceptional political victory came after Morris Iemma emerged from a post-conference meeting yesterday with the backing of his entire caucus for his plans to privatise the NSW power industry.

The Premier was so impressed by his coup - rendered by endorsements from even his rebel MPs as they filed out of the marathon meeting - that he celebrated by updating his Facebook site with the glowing new images.

'I'm very happy,' he said after giving a rare post-caucus briefing. 'There was nothing to vote on.'

An emboldened Mr Iemma then strode into Question Time and accused Opposition Leader Barry O'Farrell of being 'dumb', 'stupid', 'gutless' and having his head 'up his backside'".

Wednesday, 7 May: In a report "Iemma's caucus triumph" by Imre Saluzinsky and Andrew Faulkner, it was noted that Premier Morris Iemma's approval rating had dropped to 28%. Nevertheless the article confidently predicted:

"However, he is likely to receive a bounce in the polls from his display of strength in recent days."

In other words, the NSW public, would respect the 'strength' of a Government that had blatantly defied its will on the question of privatisation more than it would respect those who were intent on forcing Iemma to respect that will. This bizarre prediction was not realised and was quietly forgotten.

#WhatCanBeDone" id="WhatCanBeDone">What can be done about this?

The material described and quoted above represents only a small fraction of many months of misreporting. Luckily the public weren't fooled this time. Luckily, a majority of their elected representatives also chose to represent their will in Parliament and to uphold basic principles of democracy and accountability, this time.

But it so easily could have turned out differently. More often than not such mass media misinformation campaigns have achieved their goals in the recent past.

It is in similar contexts that nearly all the other state governments in Australia have managed to privatise the people's electricity assets. It was in such a manner that Keating got away with privatising the Commonwealth Bank, despite a specific election promise not to. This is how all Australia's state-owned banks and insurance companies were privatised. This is how Howard got away with privatising Telstra. In the same way, Australia was dragged into the Iraq War, in spite of the most massive popular protests since the Vietnam War. This is how "Work Choices" was implemented and continues to dominate as law. That is how a slew of expensive, inappropriate and environmentally damaging infrastructure projects have been imposed against heated community objections in almost every part of this country. This is how successive governments have been able to impose high immigration levels on an uninformed and unwilling public. This is the way that local governments have been forcibly amalgamated in Queensland, NSW and Victoria.

It is time we challenged the right of newsmedia proprietors to act so blatantly against our interests.

If the newsmedia continue to serve the public so poorly, it must, itself, become the focus of popular protests, and progressive pro-democratic political parties must pledge to legislate to prevent the newsmedia from continuing to abuse their powers in this way.

You can help by distributing this article.

Also published on webdiary.

The Green contradiction

For years Green Party leader Elizabeth May has been telling us that there are no ecological consequences from mass immigration. Canada should persist with its "great multicultural project" and aim for an immigration intake equivalent to 1% of its population level, a target that would surpass our current quota by some 70,000 migrants even though this country is already the fastest growing country in the G8 group. That we could suffer this growth without losses to biodiversity, farmland, and air quality is both counter-intuitive and empirically refutable.

May's great escape hatch, of course, is "land use planning", the same nostrum parroted by the Growth Management Industry, the NDP, the environmental NGOs, the "progressive" developers---everyone in denial who would have us believe that we can have our cake and eat it too. We can leave the tap of population growth turned on full blast while deflecting the flood away from sensitive areas.

The accent then, is not on "whether" we grow---because, after all, growth is "inevitable", especially if you keep holding the immigration floodgates open. No, the accent is on "how" we grow. And we should grow "inwards", by packing people like sheep behind tightly defined urban boundaries. Tall rabbit warrens (highrises). Infils. No more sprawl. Never mind that people who live in high density zones have high or even higher footprints too, or eventually burst the seams and colonize outlying greenbelts (hello Portland, Oregon). Or that impregnable nature reserves buckle under the population and economic pressure. And isn't it curious that the pricey urban planners, politicians and yuppie environmentalists who prescribe compact living for the working poor and middle class in Canadian cities, seem to have expensive lakeside or waterfront retreats to draw their mental sustenance from? Do as I say and not as I do?

Elizabeth May re-affirmed her commitment to "smart growth" in a CBC interview on September 14, 2008 when she stated that immigration was a problem only if land use planning was not employed, that is, by implication, if Canadians are concentrated and not dispersed, environmental damaged is minimized. An illusion of the highest magnitude.

Suddenly though, May made a startling logical about face. In responding to a caller's question she remarked that the volume of immigration is not an issue, immigrants simply need to be spread out more. She pointed out that rural areas are losing people and could benefit from immigration. "Just as there areas receiving an influx strains the fabric of an urban area, there are areas of Canada experiencing serious problems of depopulation where it would be fabulous to have the programs that ensured that more immigrants moved into places like rural Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia." But she didn't say what she would do with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which allows immigrants to settle anywhere they want in Canada, nor did she explain why immigrants would rather freeze in rural Saskatchewan than have a more comfortable life in the Fraser Valley or once induced to live in rural or northern Canada, would not eventually move south to the over-stressed cities. Dan Murray of Immigration Watch Canada commented,

"Ms. May says that the problem of environmental degradation in Canada's major immigrant-receiving areas (especially Southern Ontario and Metro Vancouver) can be solved by sending those immigrants to rural Canada. The big problem with this approach is that it is naive. Many people have left rural Canada because there are no economic opportunities there. So why send immigrants there if they too will soon have to leave? In fact, why bring most of them to Canada in the first place?"

So there you are. A Green Party leader who doesn't have her story straight. She wants both higher density and greater dispersal. She wants people packed closely together out of harm's way, away from our natural bounty, but she wants to relieve the pressure from our bulging urban centres choking from the growth forced on them by 18 years of runaway mass immigration. Smart growth and dumb growth at once. That's the Green Party of Canada. Under the thin green paint, it's a muddled mixture of trendy slogans that don't stand up to scrutiny.

Tim Murray,
Quadra Island, BC
September 16, 2008

Vermont writer David Grundy argues that it is well past time that religious extremists in the United States were disregarded in order to permit desperately needed family planning aid be to be delivered to the Third World in order to stop the current food shortage crisis from getting worse.

Article published on 5 June 2008 in www.burlingtonfreepress.com, but no longer available. Pdf file (22K) available from www.populationmedia.org.

In an Associated Press article that appeared April 23 titled "Food program warns of hunger crisis," author David Stringer claims the World Food Program says 20 million of the poorest children around the world are threatened with the "first global food crisis since World War II." "A 'silent tsunami' of hunger is sweeping the world's most desperate nations, said Josette Sheeran, the WFP's executive director," the article reads.

Many examples are given of this condition: "The price of rice has more than doubled in the last five weeks, she said. The World Bank estimates food prices have risen 83 percent in just three years," the article continues.

Various reasons are offered for this rapid rise: rising fuel prices, unpredictable weather, rising demand for food from India and China, the increase in demand for meat and dairy products in these two countries.

Various solutions to the food shortage were suggested. Obviously, grow more food. Plant genetically modified crops that can withstand drought or that produce more nutrients. And yet, in the entire article, there was no mention of attacking the main driver of hunger: too many people. It seems to me policymakers are missing the point if they believe producing more food will solve the problem of hunger when the increase in population outstrips the increase in food production.

About 40 years ago, many were extolling the benefits of the green revolution. Using intensive agricultural practices, the world could end hunger as it was then known. In placing too many hopes on this revolution, two points were missed which are coming home to haunt us in 2008: The increased production of food relied very heavily on the use of fossil fuel and manufactured artificial fertilizers, and pesticides.

Even though more food was produced, it did not keep up with the raging increase in world population.

Voluntarily limiting population size is a very touchy subject. Some of the world's religions won't even listen to arguments in favor of stabilizing our population. Our own administration prohibits financial aid to any organization that promotes family planning through contraception. To me, this is short sighted. 25,000 people around the world die each day of starvation and poverty, according to the World Food Programme of the United Nations. How are we serving humanity by allowing unfettered population growth only to watch a number of people equal to that of central Vermont die each day from starvation?

Too often we think of this as someone else's problem. But it will come home to us as we see less and less variety and quantity of food available to us on the super market shelves. As the price of oil continues to rise, those strawberries from South America in February will be too expensive for even the richest of us to buy. We will find that we will be consuming food that is grown closer to home. A recent study done by a college student has suggested Vermont could grow enough food to feed all of our residents. But you can guess that will not include exotic fruits and vegetables or large quantities of meat and dairy products.

I believe it is past time for our policy makers to stop pandering to conservative religionists and face up to the fact that our world only has enough crop land and fresh water to provide for a population that is very likely less than we now try to support.

David B. Grundy lives in East Montpelier in the state of Vermont in the United States.

See also Why is the UN so complacent in the face of over-population peril? of 2 Jul 08 by Brian McGavin, Secret report: biofuel caused food crisis of 4 Jul 08 by Aditya Chakrabortty.

That two socially immature males would cruelly bash and kick unconscious a kangaroo whilst capturing the sickening spectacle on video in an apparent attempt to impress their social peers should hardly come as a surprise in a country which, unlike South Africa which nurtures and celebrates its herds of wildebeests, stigmatises the magnificent kangaroo as a pest like a blowfly.

Kangaroos are so little understood in their own country, and their negative profile has minimised them as little more than "wood chips" for meat and skin exports. Public hatred of kangaroos is totally incomprehensible! How could kangaroos be more in abundance now than when Captain Cook sailed up the coast? There is less water in our rivers, less wetlands, less vegetation and more feral species, thanks to human mismanagement! Our biodiversity losses are of a world class standard. Kangaroos are scapegoats for livestock and human damage.

The bashings, torture and killings of native animals, especially kangaroos, is surely a reflection on their status. We have officially-endorsed "culls" (read "massacres") such as at Canberra earlier this year, and another at Maria Island, Tasmania. Despite their falling numbers, their "harvest" quota is still set at 3.5 million!

In Victoria, the DSE regularly give permits for killings when landowners are inconvenienced. Is it not surprising that there are low-lives that think that killings for entertainment are "fair go".

Our wildlife needs to be protected as our national symbols, and any attacks or killings needs to attract heavy goal sentences and fines. We are famous for decimating our wildlife, and these sadistic attacks on kangaroos are a reflection of community attitudes that urgently need to change.

See also: Nationwide hunt for kangaroo basher (Western Australia Today) of 11 Sept 08, RSPCA launches nationwide hunt for kangaroo basher (ABC) of 11 Sept 08, RSPCA, police hunt for roo thug.

Questions about channel deepening and underwriting risks

Australia's Victorian Government appointed two Panels in 2004 and 2007 to consider the Port of Melbourne (PMC) proposal to deepen the shipping channels from the Entrance of Port Phillip Bay in the south to the container ship berths at Appleton Dock in the north, and to consider the potential environmental and financial consequences that could result.

The proposal is to allow an increase in the maximum draught of ships using the port, at all stages of the tide, from 11.6 metre to 14 metre.

Following receipt of the two Panel Reports, the Victorian Government granted approval to the Port of Melbourne Corporation to proceed with deepening the shipping channels, in accordance with their submitted channel designs and operating parameters, and to engage the Dutch dredging company 'Boskalis' to carry out the dredging work.

The following comments relate specifically to the safety of navigation of near 14 metre draught ships transiting the Great Ship Channel entrance to Port Phillip and to the potential environmental, financial and social consequences that may occur if these vessels fail to navigate safely through this Channel.

The entrance to Port Phillip is recognized as one of the most difficult and dangerous port entrances world-wide. The cross currents on the flood and ebb tides in the entrance, at times exceed rates of 8 knots and flow diagonally across the Great Ship channel in two opposing directions, simultaneously. Times of high and low water, when the currents are flowing at their maximum, can differ from the predicted times by as much as 60 minutes, due to changing atmospheric pressure systems and prevailing winds. Surface tidal currents oppose the direction of the bottom currents, close to the times of change of tide.

There is factual, electronic and anecdotal evidence that vessels with less than the maximum draught of 11.6 metre are currently being set by the cross currents outside the boundaries of the Great Ship Channel into the Eastern and Western Channels. Mostly these ships will not strike the sea bed due to the existing depths of water in the side channels.

Once the Great Ship Channel is deepened, (but not widened, as proposed by the PMC) for the use of 14 metre draught ships to transit, there is no doubt that the deeper draught vessels will more likely be set into the Eastern and Western Channels and will ground in the shallower water unless these two channels are also deepened to the same depth as the Great Ship Channel.

The Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses (PIANC) in its publication, 'Guide for the Design of Approach Channels', considers the effect of cross currents in excess of 1.5 to 2.0 knots to be too strong, for the application of their empirical design rules.

In such difficult environments, the PIANC Guide recommendations require the use of ALL available local data and knowledge and testing by simulation trials to determine individual safe entrance channel design widths. These PIANC 'Recommendations' have not been fully complied with in the Entrance Channel design process.

Notwithstanding the Government's acceptance of the two Panel Reports and the PMC proposal there are many serious concerns and unanswered questions expressed by pilots, other professional mariners and hydrographic surveyors, with the safety of the 'approved' entrance channel design, and with the proposed operating parameters for near 14 metre draught ships to safely transit the Entrance to Port Phillip Bay.

Accepting the legitimacy of these concerns, the question of responsibility and liability must be examined for the potential causes (including a flawed channel design and flawed operating parameters) of a near 14 metre draught vessel grounding outside the boundaries of the Great Ship Channel and also for the potential consequences, including a shipwreck and the release of large quantities of oil. Attributing such an accident to an "Act of God" if the ship is set outside the boundaries of the Great Ship Channel and grounds in the side channels is unacceptable.

Ship owners and marine underwriters must take a close look at reduced safety margins and increased risks and the areas of responsibility and liability, and authorities must be aware of the potential economic, environmental and social consequences.

No Risk Assessment to determine the likely occurrence and consequences of such an accident that meets the International (PIANC) or National Standards (AS 4360) relating to Risks, has been undertaken by the proponent's project team.

Dredging commenced on the February 8, 2008. At the start of April 2008 the project was referred to the Victorian Government Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration for the Committee to examine the 'Business Case', as advanced by the Port of Melbourne Corporation.

The reduced safety margins and increased risks associated with the proposed channel design and the proposed operating parameters of a near 14 metre draught vessel transiting the Heads, have not been properly investigated: they are not fully understood and have not been taken into account in arguing the business case. The failure to cost risk in the business case precludes the business case complying with government and industry standards.

These deficiencies undermine the credibility of the design process for the channel at Port Phillip Heads and there is little confidence in the project securing an adequate level of ship safety and maintaining safe financial, environmental and social standards.

The safety of near 14 metre draught ships transiting Port Phillip Heads is being compromised and all parties including governments, ship owners and marine insurers need to be fully aware of the increased level of risk and the potential consequences.

The author of this paper is Captain Frank Hart, former Harbour Master of the port of Western Port and Hastings. His assertions in this report are supported by evidence provided by several former Port Phillip Pilots.

August 2008.

See also: www.bluewedges.org.

Immigration: How Much is Enough for Canada?

Original article published on 6 March 2008. The standard of much of the discussion that ensued was very high.
See #OtherDiscussions">below for links to other online discussions.

How many immigrants should Canada accept each year? What population can Canada support - and how to determine that number? And how many do we want?

These are difficult questions, and it is a sensitive issue. My grandparents immigrated to Canada when my father was eight years old. My wife and stepdaughter are currently permanent residents, and we have sponsored my wife's mother. My business partner and his family are immigrants. I am well aware of the value that immigrants bring to Canada, and the conditions in developing countries. And "Isn't the real problem overpopulation?" is one of the most frequent questions I receive during my Inconvenient Truth presentations.

Having revealed all this, I believe:

• We should allow immigration at levels that stabilise our current population
• We should conduct a 'sustainability audit' that determines how many people Canada can realistically support
• We should determine what kind of population density we want, from sparse to Singapore levels
• We must stop using population growth to postpone problems like a funded Canada Pension Plan, or to drive continuous economic growth
• We must build in a buffer to account for climate change

This is difficult stuff. First, how many people can Canada support sustainably? We must be capable of sustainably producing all our own necessities, including food, shelter, clothing, energy, mobility, and communication. That means we can't count our coal mines or the tar sands for energy. It means that importing food from China doesn't count toward a sustainable food supply for Canada. It also means we have to leave space for the natural world; humans are not living sustainably if other species are going extinct by the bucketload.

Second, once we know how many people the country could support, we must determine how closely we want to live together. It is one thing to say "Canada has lots of space and could hold more people." It is another when you start telling people they must live up north, or that Montreal is going to have the population of Beijing.

Trying to force people to live in sparsely populated areas of Canada has never worked for long. Most immigrants migrate to the big cities for a reason - for many reasons, in fact, and they are generally the same reasons most of us end up in the cities.

I also think we grossly overestimate how many people Canada can and should "hold." Yes, we have vast unpopulated areas. It is also true that many of these areas are inhospitable to humans, and most necessities would have to be shipped in from other regions.

In addition, these unpopulated areas act as buffers for human activity. Paving our vast forests so Canada can accept "her share" of the world's population makes as much sense as razing Brazil's rainforests to cram in more people there. Europe once had vast tracts of forest, but they are all gone, and the Europeans are working toward reforesting - exceptionally difficult, because there are people everywhere.

Finally, we need to get over ourselves. We are not the only beings on this planet. We are not the Supreme Beings, though we certainly have the power to destroy life, including our own. We must learn to live with Nature, as we are Nature and Nature is us.

Brian Gordon
Nominated Candidate, Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca
Green Party of Canada

Trained Presenter
An Inconvenient Truth

People - Planet - Prosperity
The New Green Economy

#OtherDiscussions" id="OtherDiscussions">Other online discussions on immigration and population

Is it reactionary to oppose immigration? of 19 Dec 07 on webdiary.com.au.

Is there intelligent life on Planet Green? of 9 Sep 08,

#comment-470700">Will "the great immigration debate" take place? of 21 May 08 on larvatusprodeo.net.

Have the Greens lost the plot on immigration? of 11 Jul 08 on Online Opinion.

New ecological science increases calls for forest protection movement to unite in campaign to protect all ancient forests.

September 11, 2008 By Earth's Newsdesk, a project of Ecological Internet (EI)
www.ecoearth.info/newsdesk

A new study in the journal Nature finds old-growth forests are "carbon sinks" and continually absorb carbon dioxide_#main-fn1">1. Australian researchers recently found logging primary forests releases 40 percent of their carbon_#main-fn2">2. These findings discredit decades of thought that primary forests are carbon neutral and only young forests continue to remove carbon.

The Earth's remaining ancient forests need to be fully protected not just because destroying them will release huge stores of greenhouse gases while destroying biodiversity -- but because science now knows what many of us intuited -- they continue in perpetuity to absorb massive amounts of new carbon dioxide. The environmental movement must respond accordingly.

This causes discomfort for groups like Greenpeace and the Rainforest Action Network (RAN) that actively support ancient forest logging. They campaign for certified industrial first-time harvest of primary forests, and to establish some protected areas, while acquiescing to ancient forest logging elsewhere. They work to end coal use, but not ancient forest logging. New ecological science indicates their discredited forest campaigns cause climate change and block ecologically sufficient policies.

Thirty percent of global forests are unmanaged primary forests or regenerating old-growth forests. These ancient forests in Canada, Russia and Alaska alone absorb 1.3 gigatonnes of carbon annually, about ten percent of global emissions. Much of their carbon, including in the soil, "will move back to the atmosphere if these forests are disturbed... Carbon accounting rules for forests should give credit for leaving old-growth forest intact," conclude Oregon State University researchers in Nature.

Greenpeace and RAN -- and virtually every major forest campaign -- continue to focus upon establishing protected areas in some remaining wildernesses, and making first-time industrial logging less damaging elsewhere. After millennia of terrestrial ecosystem destruction by humans, and over a century of failed logging reform, ecologically driven activists question the dominant failed paradigm that logging primeval forests can ever be justified. This has led to a major schism in the forest protection movement, which is not going to go away easily.

Both RAN and Greenpeace recently celebrated Ontario, Canada's promise to protect Boreal Forests in coming decades in exchange for continued industrial development now. Since the announcement, plans to log old-growth forests in Ontario's Temagami region have been fast-tracked, and logging giant AbitibiBowater has taken the agreement as a green light to intensify logging. This occurs with Greenpeace and RAN's blessing, because there may be some protections in 15 years.

Greenpeace activists last week boarded a logging ship in Papua New Guinea (PNG) to prevent Malaysian-owned logging company Rimbunan Hijau from exporting timber to China. "We need to urgently protect these ancient forests to save our climate... Greenpeace is asking the PNG government to establish a moratorium on any new large-scale logging," said campaigner Sam Moko. Given PNG's two earlier, largely Greenpeace inspired, temporary moratoriums in past decades, that led to no changes in forest policy, perhaps Greenpeace should work to END ancient forest logging in PNG and globally, before the forests are gone.

Britain's Prince Charles called yesterday for the world to act with a "sense of wartime urgency" to protect the rainforests, warning they were "umbilically connected" to the phenomenon of climate change. The heir to the British throne says rainforests "are the world's lifebelt", acting as the "world's air conditioning system" and helping store the largest body of flowing water on the planet. Such ambitious, ecologically- based policy is welcome from the nation that unleashed industrialism.

For over a decade, Ecological Internet (EI) -- the world's leading exclusively Internet-based forest and climate campaigners -- has called for an end to all primary and old- growth forest logging as necessary to save the Earth's climate and biodiversity. Active campaigns seek to end ancient forest logging in Tasmania, Australia and British Columbia, Canada. EI has campaigned to have Greenpeace and RAN change their forest policies, and given current science, their hand to continue doing so has been strengthened.

The response has been nearly total silence, with some ridicule and questioning of motives. Yet, there are important discussions regarding how forests relate to global ecological sustainability that must be held, and EI and allies will persevere. Are there enough ancient forests remaining to sustain atmospheric processes? Can first time industrial logging of ancient forests ever be done carefully enough to maintain carbon, species and other values? Is wide-scale industrial development of primary forests acceptable if indigenous peoples so desire? Why are Greenpeace and RAN stonewalling such important questions?

According to EI President, Dr. Glen Barry, "Greenpeace and RAN must engage in public dialogue, and review their forest campaigns, to bring them up to date with ecological science and planetary conditions. Emphasis must be upon requirements to maintain the Earth's atmosphere and all life's habitats -- regardless of difficulty -- and this means leaving old-growth standing. Until all forest defenders embrace full protection for ancient forests, ecologically sufficient forest campaigns cannot succeed. Continued refusal makes Greenpeace and RAN legitimate targets of protest."

Discuss this article : forests.org/blog/2008/09/feature-old-growth-carbon-find.asp

Footnotes

#main-fn1" id="main-fn1">1. #main-fn1-txt">↑ Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks. Nature 455, 213-215 (September 11, 2008).

#main-fn2" id="main-fn2">2. #main-fn2-txt">↑ Green Carbon: The role of natural forests in carbon storage. ANU E Press (July 2008).

This article has also been published on www.911truth.org, www.afterdowningstreet.org, Debunking the debunkers, www.globalresearch.ca.

The 7th anniversary of September 11, 2001 is approaching and it seems like a good time to reflect on what our nation has lost since that tragic day and what we can do to go forward.

I do not think that anyone alive on that day will forget the shock that struck our nation when the symbols of US capitalism and militarism were struck out of the clear blue sky. I was in panic mode for a few days, because I did not hear from Casey who was stationed at Ft. Hood on that day and his base went into lock-down and he was too busy to call. Even though we mourn with our fellow Americans, the loss of over 3000 innocent people and the pain their families have had to deal with, the attacks of 9-11 have touched every American.

There are several ways to look at 9-11:

• 9-11 was planned and executed by the US government.
• BushCo did not plan 9-11, but they knew it was going to happen and did nothing to prevent it and, in fact, may have allowed it to happen.
• 9-11 was planned and executed by a group of 17 terrorists (14 of them from Saudi Arabia) without the foreknowledge of the US government and we were attacked because the terrorists "hated our freedoms and democracy."

Whichever of the theories is true, one thing is for sure: the Bush regime's response to 9-11 was woefully inept and criminal, and many people have been killed, wounded, displaced or destroyed because of the Bush regime's exploitation of the tragedy to use ultra-violence against the innocent people of two nations in response to a criminal act perpetrated by a few. Watching the recent RNC was a reminder of 9-11 hysteria used to justify implementing the Project for a New American Century and excusing BushCo for the crimes they have committed on the non-existent graves of our brothers and sisters who perished that day and whose remains were never recovered.

Instead of taking a hard and critical look at the corporate-imperialistic policies of our government and trying to objectively figure out why we were attacked, we set off on a nationalistic flag waving fervor of mass fear that was only to be cured by shopping, traveling and allowing George and Dick to make a demented response to it. After 9-11 our country lost a real opportunity to search our souls and make amends to the world for our greed and violence. An apt response would have been to punish the perpetrators of the crime in a court of law and not by rabidly seeking the first country to destroy. Attacking Afghanistan was like bombing Sicily to oblivion for the crimes of the Mafia. Attacking Iraq was just for neocon kicks.

George Bush was handed a Presidential Daily Briefing in Crawford, Texas on August 6th, 2001, that read: "Osama bin Laden determined to strike in the United States." According to journalist Ron Susskind, Bush told the agent who delivered the message: "Okay, you've covered your ass." Instead, our collective asses are twisting in the wind of the abuses and excesses of the last 7 years.

Our economy is being destroyed by 7 years of seemingly endless occupations that have made Dick and his cronies wealthy, but have harmed the rest of us. The price of gas has almost tripled since 9-11, thus causing all other consumer goods to skyrocket. People are losing their jobs and homes because this war economy cannot be sustained with Monopoly money printed and devalued to cover our rising deficits. We have become the worlds' worst debtor nation and our treasury is trillions in debt.

Our famous "freedoms" that the terrorists "hated" have been eroded due to the PATRIOT ACT, the Military Commissions Act and the violent response to protest from our robo-clad police state. We can be guaranteed that any call, email or text message that we send or receive is being read and if we dare protest we will be pepper-sprayed, maced, tear gassed, tasered, or beaten with a Billy club by our employees: law enforcement; authorized by our other employees: government.

My opponent, Nancy Pelosi, has cooperated and collaborated with the Bush regime to allow torture and incarceration without due process and NSA spying on Americans without warrants. She opens her Gucci bag and doles out billions for his War OF Terror while sitting in her mansion, children and grandchildren out of harms way, while our country implodes and Iraq and Afghanistan burn. She has legitimized BushCo's crimes and refuses to hold them accountable for the destruction they have unleashed upon our world.

It's not only time for new leadership in our government, but it's time for a new 9-11 Commission that has subpoena power and is not facilitated by the crooks who either perpetrated the crime and/or collaborated with it. Government abuses cannot be credibly investigated by government commissions: A citizen's investigation that is independent from the federal government and where people like George and Dick will actually have to give their testimony in the light of day, under oath and not holding hands, must be empowered and empanelled.

If you agree with me that a new 9-11 investigation is warranted, please contribute to my campaign to unseat Vichy-Pelosi who would never agree to investigate her buddy Bush for any crimes, much less the crime of our new century.

But most importantly, Cindy for Congress sends our deepest condolences to those who lost family members on 9-11 and anyone else on this planet who have lost their jobs, homes, or lives due to George's tragic response to the tragedy of 9-11.

My son is one of the ones whose life was ended prematurely. I mourn deeply for him each day, but the way forward is towards healing, peace, accountability, environmental sustainability, and economic equality and away from the violence and greed that has colored every aspect of our lives since that sad day.

Cindy Sheehan, 10 September 2008

www.CindyforCongress.org

(Port Phillip Bay, Victoria, Australia)

The Inquiry into the economics of the Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening project was released in the State Parliament today.

Greens MLC Greg Barber and committee member said; " The Committee's report confirms that the number of big ships that might need a deeper channel is quite small."

"This is one of the biggest unknowns, with the project's benefits highly sensitive to these sorts of estimates."

Government failed to provide and Committee failed to ask for the 'real' business case.

"On the economics of the project, the committee only looked at the information that was already in the public domain. The Government failed to provide and the committee
failed to ask for the 'real' business case. The Greens are now pursuing these secret documents under Freedom of Information, " Mr Barber said.

Committee ignored wider environmental and economic costs.

"The Committee didn't consider the wider environmental and economic costs. This still remains to be fully understood, " Mr Barber said.

Mr Barber claimed credit for the Greens in spotting the "white elephant" here. Mr Barber may be contacted on 0433 044711. http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/council/SCFPA/

Citizen Activists our most important force

Of course, the role of Jenny Warfe, Len Warfe, and the Blue Wedges team has been fundamental in bringing then keeping this matter in the public attention. Many other organisations, not necessarily the big well-known ones, have joined them. Local radio programs such as 3RPP, Radio Port Phillip, have tried to be vigilant and supportive of Bay activists.

Jill Quirk and Sheila Newman first interviewed and filmed the Warfes in 2004, shortly before they left for a meeting with Steve Bracks. A little later, Quirk and Newman flew over the Queen of the Netherlands, filming the dredge 'test plume'. After that we interviewed divers from the Victorian Sub-Aquatic Association, who were devastated at what was happening to their Bay.

It has been horrifying but educational to understand the flimsiness of the Coasian economic case which seems to underpin all State economic policy and a lack of interest in democracy.

The problems have not gone away and neither has the public opposition and indignation.
On the other side of the Mornington Peninsula which separates Port Phillip Bay from Hastings Port, Catharine Manning leads investigations and public concern and protest about a proposed 400 ha industrial development, which it seems is partly a 20 year project to facilitate infrastructure and transport for importing automobiles.

It is amazing that in this age of looming petroleum depletion governments and banks obdurately behave as if industry will continue to expand without end. In fact it boggles the mind and humbles one to the sheer rigidity of many human minds and the total absence of regard that governments show their constituents when it comes to the crunch.

A measure of the success of the protest was that it was covered by four TV stations Channels 2, 7, 9 and 10. Channel 3 may be doing a documentary on the opposition to road tunnels. The Herald Sun mentioned our protest but not the Age news_#main-fn1">1. (There has been a letter published today see below.) We expect that it may feature in local papers in the coming week including The Melbourne Times, The Moonee Valley and Melbourne Leader papers. (See the www.savehollandpark.org.au website for TV footage and photos by Cory Baudman. See also www.ycat.org.au Ycat website (Yarra Campaign Against the Tunnel) Also an indication that we had been noticed - Premier Brumby refused to face the protest and went into the Transport Summit by a side door via the carpark.We were there to present him with the resolution passed at the rally.

Background - Failure of Government to Consult

Here is some background. As you may know the Brumby government staged 8 transport forums organised by the Department of Transport, ostensibly to consult with the public on Victoria's Transport Plan. Members of Parliament with inner metropolitan seats. Members of Parliament with inner Melbourne seats - namely Bronwyn Pike (Melbourne), Richard Wynne (Richmond) and Carlo Carli (Brunswick) belatedly and at extremely short notice held their own forums. These forums were intended to provide community feedback for the Premier's Transport Summit, which was originally scheduled for mid September. Although the MP's declared that their forums were for local residents they were by invitation only and, significantly many community organisations, individuals and local residents were refused invitations and admission.

#AgeLetter-8Sep08" id="AgeLetter-8Sep08">Letter in the Age 8 September 2008

"Talking to all the 'right' people"

PREMIER John Brumby claims that we have been consulted over Sir Rod Eddington's grand transport plan for Melbourne (Insight, 6/9). In the past month, eight transport forums - Clayton's consultations - were held in country Victoria and outer suburbs, none in central Melbourne.

Then some Government MPs did their own thing and held forums. Carefully selected individuals and community groups were invited, but many were refused admission. ALP members did score invitations.

Forum facilitators ensured that controversial topics were not raised - such as Eddington's $9 billion road tunnels through the inner city and elevated freeways through the western suburbs.

On Friday, the Premier evaded protesters waiting to present him with demands for sustainable public transport, slipping into his transport summit through the Telstra Dome car park. Not only is the Premier not properly consulting, but he also isn't listening to the wider public on Melbourne's transport fiascoes.

Julianne Bell, convener, Royal Park Protection Group, Hawthorn

Footnotes

#main-fn1" id="main-fn1">1. #main-fn1-txt">↑ A list of stories retrieved by a google news query on John Brumby on Monday 8 September included a link to a story "Protesters rally outside tunnel summit". However the link actually led to an almost completely different story entitled. "Plan 'may ease' Melbourne's train crush". The google teaser was:

Protesters rally outside tunnel summit The Age, Australia - Sep 4, 2008
Protesters rallied outside a transport summit in Melbourne in opposition to a proposed east-west road tunnel. About 30 people assembled outside the Telstra ...

Clearly, the protest had been reported early on the web, but an editorial decision was subsequently made to both not publish the story in the printed paper and to overwrite the web report of the story with another report.

Greens say the Port of Melbourne is polluting Port Phillip Bay

Greens MP Sue Pennicuik says that the latest PoMC quarterly report has indicated that water quality control limits were exceeded on a number of occasions over the last three months. In addition water-quality testing by ACFs Bay Monitor has confirmed that the plume from the dredger has spread further than predicted and the report that the dredger has spilled 1,000 litres of hydraulic fluid at the Entrance to the Bay just show that the Port is not serious about protecting the ecosystem of Port Phillip Bay.

"The plume from the dredger has spread further than the Port had predicted, but many others in the community had predicted that this would happen," said Ms Pennicuik.

"Arsenic, zinc, copper, nickel and nitrogenous compounds have all been found in concentrations higher than the 'control limits,' which is no surprise either due to the weak Environmental Management Plan that the Port is operating to. All of this was foreseen by scientists and others independent of the Port and the state government and sadly are coming to pass.

Laws weakened to accommodate dredging project

"The pollution and the spreading dredge plume demonstrates the inability of the PoMC to adhere to even its own watered down environmental standards."

"I find it deplorable that the response of the PoMC to these breaches is to further weaken [environmental standards] to accommodate the needs of the dredging project rather than the needs of the ecosystem of Port Phillip Bay."

"This is like removing the canaries from the coal mines when the poison gas levels rise, she said."

"My question is 'where is the regulator?' Which agency is pursuing the dredging company and the Port of Melbourne for polluting Port Phillip Bay?"

Source: Media release, 10 September 2008.
For more information call Sue Pennicuik 0407 000 270

This article, by Mary Drost, was originally published on Marvellous Melbourne on 8 Jul 08.

More than 30 years ago I moved to live in Indonesia and resided in Jakarta on and off for 21 years.

The first Governor of Jakarta under the Soeharto regime, Ali Sadikin, was an outstanding leader and one of the first things he did was to seek advice from a team of planning experts from the United Nations on how to manage this fast growing city of 3 million people.

The U.N. advice was:

• Don't let the city population increase. They said if the city became larger it would become unmanageable.
• Develop five or six satellite cities in a semi-circle around Jakarta but far enough away from the main city so they would not become suburbs at some future time.
• Ensure that these satellite cities were self sufficient and self-sustaining.

The Governor accepted the U.N. advice and commenced to put the plan in place by immediately closing the city. However, President Soeharto refused to accept the policy and the city eventually opened up and was allowed to continue its rate of population growth and development.

Ali Sadkin told me all this during my recent visit to Jakarta. He said that it is now a city of 12 million people and a nightmare. His advice was do not let it happen in Melbourne as the State Government's Melbourne 2030 decrees.

Through developer greed and Government corruption Jakarta now suffers from poor public transport, massive traffic congestion, pollution, inadequate sewerage, overcrowded schools and hospitals, loss of public space, etc. Sound familiar?

Steve Brack's is on record as saying he would be happy to see six million people in Melbourne and be Australia's biggest city and his Melbourne 2030 plan is pushing us towards a population of five million in this city by 2020.

But stopping population growth is not like turning off a tap, it does not magically stop in 2030. What will the situation be in 2040 or 2050 – a lot closer to the Jakarta situation I suspect.

At what point do we say enough is enough? Maybe we should heed the advice the Governor of Jakarta got from the U.N. and maybe we should look very hard for a better alternative to the Government's very flawed Melbourne 2030 plan.

In my last visit to Jakarta I had nightmares that this could well be Melbourne in 20 or 30 years time if we follow the Melbourne 2030 principles. I spent hours in tightly packed traffic all day, every day, in all roads, in every direction, and I longed for the days when I drove myself everywhere in Jakarta with no problems. Longed for the time when I could see blue sky and breathe fresh air. It was a good lifestyle but it has gone.

How could the Indonesian administration have let this happen? We all know that corruption is quite open there but there has also been a lot of stupidity in what has occurred and a huge amount of developer greed. There certainly has been no vision.

Development through population growth leading to greed and corruption and all the infrastructure problems and social difficulties that follow must not be allowed to happen here. There are clear signs right now that we are well on the way. We of course have a problem Jakarta does not have. We are short of water, they have plenty. Maybe we cant keep many more people clean and hydrated, let alone keep our 'Garden State' from becoming the Concrete State.

We must take firm action now to ensure my nightmare does not become a reality".

Mary Drost Convenor of Planning Backlash
A network of 120 plus resident action groups across city, country and coast.

See also: Will Rudd Government's high immigration program turn Australia into Argentina? of 19 Jul 08, Melbourne 2008: Life in a destruction zone of 29 Jun 08

Media release

September 8, 2008
By Earth's Newsdesk, a project of Ecological Internet (EI)
www.ecoearth.info/newsdesk
Contact: Dr. Glen Barry, +1 (920) 776-1075

(Earth) -- A new type of environmental news service launches this week, as "Earth's Newsdesk" will report upon ecological science, policy and advocacy from the Earth's perspective. Ecological Internet will begin regularly providing biocentric media releases and feature articles for publication elsewhere. This continues a long list of firsts from EI and its predecessors, including the web's first blog and environmental search engine.

The free service will build upon Ecological Internet's constant tracking of environmental science, policy and advocacy -- and years of deep green analysis and action -- and will report upon major threats and opportunities facing forests, climate, water and oceans. It will focus upon environmental sustainability and the needs of the biosphere, and her ability to continue maintaining a habitable Earth for all life.

"The emphasis will be upon fully and truthfully knowing the magnitude of global ecological crises, and reporting upon ambitious yet attainable ecological sustainability solutions," explains Ecological Internet's President, Dr. Glen Barry.

"There is something deeply wrong when foundation-fed environmental groups tell us logging ancient forests protects them, and governments fail miserably to promote adequate climate policies. 'Earth's Newsdesk' will be a fierce, independent voice for ecological sufficiency. No government or organization's greenwash will be safe from criticism."

This new news service, along with the soon to launch "New Earth Rising" e-zine, will substantially increase Ecological Internet's original content offerings. EI continues to recruit essayists and guest bloggers. These writings will compliment Ecological Internet's unmatched environmental search, news tracking, deep ecological analysis and action alerts.

Those subscribed to Ecological Internet's Climate and Forest News Today email lists, and extensive global media list, will already receive the releases. Subscribers belonging only to Ecological Internet's "Earth Action Network" will need to add Earth's Newsdesk to their subscriber settings at: http://www.ecoearth.info/shared/subscribe/

Discuss this media release at www.ecoearth.info/blog/2008/09/release_earths_newsdesk_launch.asp.

---

Dr. Glen Barry is a leading global spokesperson on global forest and climate policy. Ecological Internet provides the web's leading environment, climate and forest web portals at www.ecoearth.info, www.climateark.org and forests.org. Dr. Barry frequently conducts interviews on the latest global environmental policy developments and can be reached at: glenbarry [AT] ecologicalinternet org (note confirmation email response required) and +1 (920) 776-1075.

The title previously was: Mother Nature: dig out your begging-bowl - dem cotton farmers is coming yo' way

Not content with being a major contributor to the desiccation of creeks and rivers in the Murray-Darling and to the increased salinity of the system, in the midst of the nation’s worst water crisis the cotton industry is intending to increase its use of groundwater, as this is more cost-effective than purchasing impounded surface water at current prices.

NSW Cotton growers too thirsty

Fair Water Use has been informed that twelve Southern NSW cotton growers will tap the already compromised ground-water reserves of the Basin to irrigate 2500 hectares of cotton this season. At an average irrigation rate of 6.3 megalitres per hectare (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2005-06), this equates to an additional 15,750 megalitres extracted from stressed local aquifers and, to all intents and purposes, exported.

CSIRO identifies groundwater drawdown as major threat

In a recent publication “The shared water resources of the Murray-Darling Basin”, the CSIRO identified one of the most serious threats to the future of the Basin as the rapid increase in groundwater extraction. CSIRO scientist, Dr Tom Hatton, has also pointed out the stupidity of “robbing Peter to pay Paul”, as groundwater extractions exacerbate the widespread impacts of the endemic overuse of surface water.

Market forces making matters worse, not better

Fair Water Use, and an increasing percentage of Australians, believes that it is totally unacceptable to leave the waters of the Murray-Darling Basin at the mercy of the market. To continue to do so will deliver control of the availability and price of water into the hands of those who are most able to pay. Mother Nature will doubtless be left squatting on the banks of the dried-out Darling, proffering her begging-bowl: and the line of Australians queuing beside her will grow ever-longer.

The Murray-Darling is crying out for complete overhaul, commencing with the declaration of a State of Emergency, as per our submission to the current Senate enquiry.

Source: 'Fair Water Use – striving for a revived Murray-Darling basin by supporting environmentally sustainable water-use'

Why is Australia helping to plunder Peru? The indigenous people in Peru are being dispossessed of their land by a corrupt government, and the mining companies with their "free trade" agreements are being supported by President Garcia! Mining is polluting the river water at Reque and there are no hospitals or doctors. The Napo river is being poisoned because of gold mining. Cocaine smugglers are also infiltrating this area. Human corruption and greed have no ends!

Indigenous people are up in arms against these multinational companies who want to remove them from their territories, destroy their rainforests and destroy their communities. What about human rights? This is shameful to Australia and APEC. BHP, Rio Tinto and other mining companies should get OUT of Peru_#main-fn1">1. The people will get NOTHING and the money will go to the president and his corrupt ministers.

The land belongs to the indigenous people, They do not want "civilisation" or to get "integrated" into the economy - and participate in all the anarchy and corruption of Peruvian cities. Nothing is spent on the people of Peru. They have few hospitals, schools, housing, roads, transport and human rights are non-existent. How is Australia dealing with such a country? The indigenous people are willing to die for their land. They are being bribed and extorted to give up and leave, and the government is intimidating their leaders with fabricated "crimes". They have been accused of being "terrorists" but have the right to live in and defend their traditional land.

We should not be taking part in APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation)! What about human rights, and the environmental costs of destroying rainforest areas? This is NOT the way to prosperity. This is poison and evil. The indigenous people want their land and to live in peace.

It is shameful that APEC and Australia are making agreements with this corrupt Peruvian government. Money is the root of all evil.

Note: after I read this I did a Google News search to confirm what was written by Vivienne. I found only a small amount about mining in Peru. These stories, inclucing the one listed below, confirm what Vivienne. However, this story seemed to be in contradiction to a 'good news' story, Peruvian forest laws overturned of 29 Aug 08 by Rick Kearns. So I e-mailed Vivienne to ask if, perhaps, her bad news story was dated. She advised me that she got the information from a friend who is from Peru and reads the online newspapers every day. She advised me that "the President in Peru has the ultimate power and can go against congress - like a king. There is no accountability or no-one he has to answer to. He is totally unpopular except for a few richer people and there is no way to get rid of him. ... I don't usually take interest in human concerns as such as I am more interested in animal rights, wildlife and environment, but these indigenous people live in harmony with the environment and are totally innocent of all the corruption and anarchy of Peru. I can't help but feel sympathy for them and the rainforest that is their home! Very concerning. Now the government is trying to frame the leaders for tax evasion(!) ... . They are poisoning the rivers and the dolphins and fish are dying." - JS

Footnotes

#main-fn1" id="main-fn1">1. #main-fn1-txt">↑ See Mining giant defends against BHP 5Sep08 in the Herald Sun Asked if possible joint ventures included Simandou iron ore in Guinea, Oyu Tolgoi copper in Mongolia and La Granja copper in Peru, (Rio Tinto CEO) Mr (Tom) Albanese responded that he would consider "anything that provides a positive, value-adding proposition for Rio shareholders."

Other stories about Peru

Peruvian forest laws overturned of 29 Aug 08 by Rick Kearns in Indian Country Today, Indigenous protesters triumph as laws revoked in Peru AFP of 22 Aug 08, Seizing Native land in Peru, one parcel at a time Peru of 4 Jul 08 by Rick Kearns in Indian Country Today, Indigenous rebellion in the Amazon of 30 Aug 08 in Green Left Weekly

For a somewhat subtle and seemingly pro-indigenous-people article in favour of rainforest destruction read Peru's Battle Over Subsoil Threatens Tribes of 3 Sep 08

Other stories about Latin America

Morales funds three indigenous universities in Bolivia by Rick Kearns in Indian Country Today of 3 Sep 08.

More violence in Bolivia after referendum by Rick Kearns in Indian Country Today of 5 Sep 08.

Morales claims victory in Bolivian recall referendum AFP of 10 Aug 08.

Bolivia Nationalizes Pipeline AFP of 3 Jun 08.

Morales makes good on land reform promises by Rick Kearns in Indian Country Today of 18 Feb 08.

There once was a Canadian couple who lived in denial. They believed they could live the Californian dream with a Green conscience too, retro-fitted with snug windows and thick insulation and equipped with solar panels and air conditioners positioned at high settings. He was a developer, but a “progressive” developer if you must know. He had learned that he could push through almost any development if he tacked the word “sustainable” on the end of it. So he was closing deals all the time. Attending meetings all the time. Meeting with local and regional politicians all the time. So it was important to make a good impression. To be smart, he must look smart. That is where his “suit” fetish came in. He made a habit of buying a new suit almost every day. Soon the closets of home filled up with suits so that there was no space left over for anything else but his suits. What was his wife’s response? As a member of the Sierra Club, it was congenitally impossible for her to tell him to simply stop growing his wardrobe. Growth is inevitable. Her philosophy was “growth management”. So she went out and bought closet organizers. Again and again. She would buy them to compress the inventory of her husband’s suits, and then weeks later, more compression was called for, and the cycle would be repeated. Voila! Smart growth. Alas, it was evident her strategy would not work ad infinitum. Her stress level was rising. Eventually she was ripping out the R50 insulation, sending it to the dump and replacing it with some of her husband’s suits. Sensing her frustration, her husband proposed that they buy a bigger house in a better neigbourhood. One with more closet space. She countered that as an environmentalist, she would have no part of it. The energy problems we have today, she argued, issued out of the fact that very large homes were being occupied by too few people. So she was going to proceed with her plans of having a third and fourth child. After all, as far as the environment is concerned, it is as Ontario Green Party leader Frank de Jong said, “population is a red herring”, because as his federal leader, Elizabeth May remarked, it is not how many people that live in Canada that is important, “but whether they live like Bill Gates or Ghandhi.” So just keep them comin’. More and more suits. More and more babies, more and more immigrants, lets just find smarter ways to pack them all in like the men with white gloves who push commuters into Japanese subway trains. Green living habits of conserve, recycle and reduce feed the obsessive compulsive disorders of those who feel the need to fixate on the trivial in order to avoid the facing the truly lethal dangers of over-population in our society. This neurotic wife of the pack rat forms the template for urban planners across the continent.

On September 5, 2008, Victorian newspaper, The Age, ran an article by Cameron Houston and Royce Millar, under the screaming headline, 'City of 8 million 'unlivable'.

On September 5, 2008, Victorian newspaper, The Age, ran an article by Cameron Houston and Royce Millar, under the screaming headline, 'City of 8 million 'unlivable'.

The article reported the latest population projections from the Australia Bureau of Statistics. These frightening projections were reported as if they were actual predictions. The article should have generated a number of printable letters to The Age almost immediately.

Surprisingly, on September 7, no reader responses had been published questioning the rapid size and rate of immigration fuelled population growth.

This is disappointing and it is hard to believe that The Age did not receive any critical letters worthy of being published on this issue. On a number of occasions The Age has exhorted the federal government of the day to implement a 'population policy'. People who follow the Age closely in such matters know that the Age always wants higher population. And, what the Age means when it calls for a 'population policy' is higher immigration.

Now that there are almost daily reports of social and environmental symptoms of overpopulation in Victoria, and consternation about rising population, The Age is silent on calling for public debate on population policy. With its false alarm about 8 million for Melbourne (more than twice the current population of Victoria), The Age looks as if it is intentionally attempting to create a self-fulfilling prophecy, at great risk to the quality and safety of the lives of the people of Victoria and future generations.

It is no secret that Fairfax digital owns www.domain.com.au and thereby benefits from the overheated housing industry, in addition to the benefits it derives from kilos of pulped forests weekly in Age newspaper ads for real-estate.

The population-growth-dependent international real-estate market for Australian land and housing has become big business and Fairfax press are big business.

On 11th June this year, John Sutton from the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU), stated that it was 'Time for a Genuine Migration Debate'. After all, 56% of Australia's net annual population is derived from overseas migration at the discretion of the federal government . In the course of his statement John Sutton said '... the Rudd Government should take the steering wheel off the big business lobby and ensure Australia's environment,community and worker's interests are all taken into account' . While the economic and demographic benefits of Australia's current net annual migration intake are equivocal, the adverse environmental and social impacts are unequivocal. The fact that the ABS projections are not predictions, particularly on migrant intakes - needs to be emphasised and repeated. The settings can and should be changed.

(Additional comment: Candobetter Editors note that on 8-8-08 a letter criticising the article's failure to differentiate between statistical trends and predictions was published in the Age, in simplified form.)

Arthur Bassett

Those Australians uncorrupted by the ubiquitous US media, are gobsmacked by the utter tastelessness that passes as attractive in US presidential candidates. Sarah Palin, the latest republican candidate for USA Vice President, epitomises this trend.

Championing selected human rights, apparently prepared to sacrifice her own daughter to a public shot-gun marriage, she seems like a high-tech cartoon of a religious reactionary. It is chilling to realise that the violent religious right are among the few which the press and corporations want to motivate to vote in the US client state. The rest of the American voters are largely kept very bored with the notion of exerting some say in their own fates.

Not just tasteless; malice and stupidity caught on film:

I was bemused, impotent - until I saw this film. Then I realised how bad Sarah Palin must be, how bad the US situation must be - politically and for wild as well as domesticated species - tortured and harassed the way they were in Roman circuses and for the same political ends.

This three minute video about Sarah Palin's appallingly cruel record on wildlife also tells us about the beautiful Alaskan wilderness.

A rare chance to speak up for wildlife and be heard world-wide

The world is watching Sarah Palin.
Please don't give into apathy here, because the high profile of this ignorant woman, gives those of us with an ounce of decency, an opportunity at world-wide level, to show the US Republicans that shooting animals whose habitat is already beseiged by US overpopulation and economic greed - for sport - goes way beyond the bounds of decency.

The situation and the values appear to be quite depraved. The bible bashing that accompanies this grand-scale human bullying is nauseating and frightening. How widespread is this emotionally blunted contempt for nature and blindness to beauty or compassion in the mainstream religions?

Time now for religious leaders to rise up and condemn and ostracise this woman and the entire party which endorses her, or forever be condemned by their already long record of silence on such things.

On top of her apparent absence of normal compassion, this woman who according to my values is insane, actually models the brutal execution of wildlife using technologically intensive weaponry from petroleum-guzzling small airplanes. This is frightening ignorance of here and now petroleum costs and scarcity in a world where the US has actually gone to war for more petroleum. This is oil-profligacy in a political context where even her own party is advocating reducing foreign oil dependency. For every drop of oil, how many drops of human and other blood and sap in our turbo-vandalised natural world?

Is Right to Life a political mechanism to draw energy from reasonable people?

It makes you wonder if Right to Life is just an impossibly confusing, diabolically effective smokescreen to cover up total immorality, utter selfishness, blind, driving ambition, compulsive wastefulness and money-worship in the US political Right. Are the religious right of the Republicans its moral orcs?

Big money that endorses Republican cruelty should withdraw it or face consumer consequences

And, for those of us who spend nearly all our lives fighting against the needless, heart-breaking suffering which proceeds at an industrial rate, how appalling is the information that big money backs this suffering and keeps it accelerating and amplifying. If that money were to be taken from Sarah Palin and the Republican Party which has endorsed such unspeakable acts, how much kinder, overnight, the world would become.

I hope that someone will write an article about those organisations which have funded Palin and the Republicans so that we on candobetter can name their CEOs and associate them with these deeds.

Like a gothic fairy-tale

Sarah Palin is actually the Governor of Alaska. For more about this woman and for a very interesting comparison of economic benefits of passive wildlife observation vs violent rampaging and Palin's lack of interest in the first, have a look at this Alaskan website, Grizzly Bay Org. According to Grizzlybayorg, her parents guided her values in this.

Photo-source: http://www.grizzlybay.org/SarahPalinInfoPage.htm

It seems like a bad fairy-tale, doesn't it?

Roger Schlickeisen, of Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund, writes that acceptance by Sarah Palin of the Republican nomination for Vice President puts her second in line to be President of the United States. He says that he needs help "... to let America know where she stands on the brutal and needless aerial hunting of wolves and bears. He asks that people "Watch our new video on Palin’s awful record and share it with everyone you know who cares about wildlife." He warns that the "video is extremely disturbing. It contains graphic images of aerial hunting of wolves," and he adds that this is "a brutal and needless practice that Governor Palin has fought hard to promote and expand."

Palin targets wolves and bears from aircraft; offers costly bounties

Schlickeisen states that, "Despite strong scientific, ethical and public opposition to aerial hunting, Governor Palin has:

* Proposed paying a $150 bounty for the left foreleg of each dead wolf.
* Approved a $400,000 state-funded propaganda campaign to promote aerial hunting.
* Introduced legislation to make it even easier to use aircraft to hunt wolves and bears."

He asks, and I reiterate, "If you care about wildlife, please watch this video right now -- and then share it with every friend, neighbor, conservationist and wildlife lover you know."

Please share this video

"Please also share our video on blogs, social networks and elsewhere. I’ve pasted the link to the video below to help you spread the word: http://actionfund.defenders.org/palinvideo "

Original source of information about the film was 4-9-08 : Rodger Schlickeisen, President of Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund: Subject: Video: Sarah Palin's Shameful Record on Wolves

Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund
Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund provides a powerful voice in Washington to Americans who value our conservation heritage. Through grassroots lobbying, issue advocacy and political campaigns, the Action Fund champions those laws and lawmakers that protect wildlife and wild places while working against those that do them harm.

Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund can be contacted at:
1130 17th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
or at www.defendersactionfund.org

See also:
Alaska Governor Sarah Palin Wins 2008 Rubber Dodo Award in biologicaldiversity.org of 17 Sep 08, Sarah Palin's record on environment is abysmal in seattlepi.nwsource.com of 5 Sep 08 by Rick Steiner and readers' comments,
New Orleans: The City That Won't Be Ignored in The Nation of 3 Sep 08 by Naomi Klein. How Democrat Barack Obama has incredibly surrendered critical ground to McCain in New Orleans, in which the the Rebublican Bush administration scandalously mismanaged the relief effort following Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

Media Release: 4 September 2008

Murray-Darling chaos: the final straw

National coordinator of Fair Water Use (Australia), Dr Ian Douglas has responded to today's statement by the Federal Water Minister that the commonwealth is not in a position to purchase major irrigating agribusiness enterprise, Darling Farms, in the absence of support from the State Government of NSW.

"It merely confirms what has become increasingly clear to Australians over recent months: that current arrangements with respect to the governance and administration of the Murray-Darling Basin are dysfunctional and self-defeating, and are clearly failing to maintain this vital river system for the benefit of us all", Dr Douglas said.

Fair Water Use has today submitted documentation (attached) to the Secretary of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, which is coordinating submissions to the Senate Inquiry into water management in the Coorong and Lower Lakes and the Emergency Water (Murray-Darling Basin Rescue) Bill 2008.

These documents call for and define the terms of a declaration of a State of Emergency (pdf, 67K) and the establishment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry (pdf, 69K) into the management and governance of the Murray-Darling Basin.

Contact: Ian Douglas: 0416 022178

Authorised by: Ginny Brown, Media Coordinator,
media [AT] fairwateruse com au, +61 (0)414 914248

Fair Water Use (Australia), www.fairwateruse.com.au
+61 (0)8 8398 0812, PO Box 384, Balhannah, South Australia 5242

See also: National Water Commission: No plan - no future for Murray-Darling.

Source of Bass Penguin photo: http://www.holidaymagazine.com.au/bassgippsland/img/main-image-home.jpg

Originally published on www.yourwateryoursay.org on 20 Aug 08.

Your Water Your Say Media Release, 20 Aug 08

The Your Water Your Say Action Group (www.yourwateryoursay.org) is heartened to see that 12 months after the State Government announced it is to build the largest desalination plant in Australia on the Bass Coast, they have finally published the environmental assessments of the project.

After the Government, the DSE and numerous consultants have spent 12 months working on the assessments, the public will have only 5 weeks to review over 1600 pages of highly technical and complex documents.

YWYS President, Andrea Bolch says that this highlights the absolute inequity in this process. "The public, who have to do this in their spare time and at their own expense have only 5 weeks to review this enormous report that has taken full time, highly paid consultants, 12 months to prepare." The system is totally biased and does not allow the public to fully and properly engage in the process.

To emphasise this point, the public is being charged around $250 for a full set of the documents in hard copy. Given this is, at minimum, a $3.1 billion project with consultants already paid millions of dollars, this is an insult to be pinching pennies from the public.

Ms. Bolch says "The Government designed EES terms of reference specifically narrow to get the evaluations and outcome that they wanted that would simply support their decision. The EES does not include any evaluation of the water augmentation options available to Melbourne and there is no doubt this report does not include costing information for the public, who will pay for this plant, to really understand what the real cost will be."

This is a process intended to make it look like the public is involved but it is a farce. The EES is not designed to determine "IF" the project should go ahead but has become the blueprint for the tenderers to build the plant. It will no doubt set out a number of conditions that will simply need to be met by the contractors when developing their submissions.

Construction of the project has already begun without any environmental assessments being released. Expressions of Interest to build the main plant have already been completed without any knowledge of the environmental impacts it will have. The Brumby Government has said from the day the plant was announced that "it will be built" and this was without knowing its environmental consequences.

When the EES process was established 30 years ago it was set up to ensure that decisions were taken with full knowledge of the environmental consequences. This Government has turned the whole intent of the EES process on its head by making the decision with no information on the environmental consequences, designing a scope of reference to get the outcome they want and then using that information to support their decision.

The EES has been reduced to being nothing more than a highly stage managed process that enables the Government to stand up and say they have the assessments that support the decision they took 12 months ago.

YWYS is still in limbo with the Government as yet undecided as to whether or not it will pursue the organisation for court costs. How can we legitimately participate in a process with a sword hanging over our heads that could stop us from properly participating and contesting the EES.

For more information contact:
Chris Heislers, 0419 556 381, heislers [AT] netspace net au
Andrea Bolch, 0400 065 253, abolch [AT] austarnet com au

A report in Melbourne's "The Age" newspaper August 25th 2008 tells how Mr Ted Baillieu the rather affable, reasonable sounding leader of the Opposition in Victoria howled down members from his Sandringham branch of his party who voiced a concern about Melbourne's massive population growth - about 1,500 people per week The Age quotes Mr. Baillieu as saying to a meeting of 700 . "Be very careful when you discuss these things. Don't allow anyone to say we are opposed to population growth, or that we are going to point fingers at migration. If we put out the stop sign then we are sending the wrong messages, and this economy will suffer long-term." He went on to say that Melbourne's problems with train services and the lack of water resources was due to lack of planning by the current state government. of greater Melbourne." (Melbourne's dams are are at a lower level than were this time last year despite recent rain and of course we have about 60,000 more people!)

According to The Age - the amended resolution, that council "recognises a deteriorating quality of life inherent in the ongoing increase in the population" was then passed. Mr Baillieu accused the Premier of poor planning and scapegoating immigrants after Mr Brumby this month warned of the stresses on services caused by Melbourne's high rate of population growth.

The following letter by me was published in The Age on the 26th August:

It's about people, not politics, Mr Baillieu

HOW disappointing to read the Victorian Opposition Leader, Ted Baillieu's, reaction to sensible policy proposals from the Sandringham branch of the Liberal Party and also to a recent responsible warning from Premier John Brumby regarding the high rate of Victoria's population growth ("Blame it on Labor, not migration: Baillieu", The Age, 25/8). Mr Baillieu seems to carry a child-like belief that correct planning can cope with any level of population growth.

Just as some sanity is emerging in his own party and from our Labor Premier, the Liberal leader panics and silences his party members, who are pointing out that the emperor has no clothes - we cannot keep growing at this rate and maintain our quality of life. It seems Ted scolded the naughty children and silenced their well-founded concerns.

In fact, Victoria's population cannot keep growing at any rate and be compatible with long-term survival - but I was not at the Liberal Party meeting and I'm not sure if anyone pointed this out.

See also: Blame it on Labor, not migration: Baillieu by Paul Austin in the Melbourne Age of 25 Aug 08, City of 8 million 'unliveable' by Cameron Houston and Royce Millar in the Age of 5 Sep 08

After the documented loss of 4,152 US servicemen and 90,000 Iraqi civillians killed in the Iraq War and a cost to the US budget, so far, of US$574 billion, Republican Presidential nominee John McCain reveals that he knows how "to get Osama bin Laden". So, why didn't Republican Senator John McCain pass on that knowledge to the Republican Bush administration earlier?

Seven years too late !!!

Senator McCain proclaims, "President Clinton had opportunities to get Osama bin Laden. President Bush had opportunities to get Osama bin Laden. I know how to do it and I'll do it." [3 September]

If he knows how to do it, if bin Laden is truly high-priority, Number-One-Wanted, then why doesn't McCain focus on pursuing bin Laden right now? McCain asserts that he has the credibility and influence to make this happen, even if he cannot give the orders.

I mean, if McCain is the patriot he claims to be, if he loves American as he professes, if he "know[s] how the world works [and] how the military works" [paraphrasing McCain], then McCain abdicates his patriotic responsibilities by not pursuing bin Laden, by not leveraging his knowledge of the world and military, by not persuading the decision-makers and enabling what's required to accomplish this seven-year-old mission.

In fact, McCain prostitutes his knowledge, experience, and self-proclaimed patriotism for millions of dollars and the expectation of millions of votes, instead of lobbying, cajoling, marshalling the information and resources to enable Bush to "get" bin Laden.

Words are cheap; they make great sound-bytes. And McCain's words are seven years too late!

Judy Bamberger,
O'Connor ACT

See also: McCain says knows how to capture bin Laden (Reuters India, 4 Sep 08)

Judy Bamberger		+61-2-6247-6220 (work and fax)
Process Solutions		+61-2-6247-4746 (home)
		bamberg [AT] eaglet rain com