The government's repeal of the "carbon tax" won't make climate change go away! it’s a political decision, not one based on science, or a rational reaction to any new empirical evidence contrary to its existence.
Denial of climate science is one that’s based on the assumption that you can believe it or not! We don’t doubt the findings of other scientific results, or discoveries.
According to the National Climate Assessment, the world is currently experiencing the effects of climate change, or the shifting of the planet’s climate zones due to environmental factors.
Small island states such as Tuvalu and many other countries have been shocked by the obstructive tactics of Australia at UN-sponsored climate change talks at Warsaw last year, particularly over negotiations to set up a new institution to deal with Loss and damage, a new mechanism for compensation to countries that suffer from climate change. Numerous other countries expressed their shock that major industrial nations had wound back their targets, rather than increasing them. This was widely seen as a direct reference to the stance adopted by Japan, Canada and Australia.
(Aerial view of Tuvalu’s capital, Funafuti, 2011. Tuvalu is a remote country of low lying atolls, making it vulnerable to climate change.)
In a radio interview with Neil Mitchell, Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott said that the Head of the UNFCCC, Christiana Figueres, is #10;http://indymedia.org.au/2013/10/23/tony-abbott-in-denial-on-bushfire-climate-change-link">"talking through her hat" for connecting the NSW bushfires with climate change and that "these fires are certainly not a function of climate change, they are just a function of life in Australia."
The trick of Climate denial has been to pretend they are arguing science, but they are in fact impeding science education to the broader public to maintain general ignorance as a political lever.
(This figure shows the annual fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions, in million metric tons of carbon, for a variety of non-overlapping regions covering the Earth.)
The problem is that climate change is long-term, and has tremendous implications for our economic model, government agendas, and the habitability of our planet. Anthropogenic climate change is bigger than the sum of us! It’s too big for governments and politicians to handle, and the whole economic paradigm of “growth” and “progress” is under threat!
Per head of population, we are some of the biggest emitters on the planet, and population growth is a strong driver of absolute emissions. There's bipartisan support for continuing population and economic growth, projecting future emissions trajectories.
In Australia we are also experiencing the impact of warming. Australia had its hottest year on record in 2013 a pattern ominously intensifying in 2014. Long heat waves extreme fire danger and a lengthening fire season, are all part of the new normal. The frequency of record heat events has doubled from the middle of the 20th century to the present, and over the past decade, record high temperature events are occurring three times more frequently than record cold temperatures.
The United Kingdom experienced its coldest spring since 1962. Snow fell in record amounts in northern regions—in late March. This harkened back to the bitter 2012 European cold wave that brought freezing temperatures across the continent, resulting in hundreds of people freezing to death.
Half of the United States is suffering through drought conditions — including all of California, which saw huge swathes of the San Diego area swept by raging wildfires during May this year.
Large portions of the United States are currently experiencing the effects of a "polar vortex", an area of low pressure bringing dangerously cold air over the country. Temperatures in the Midwest and Northeast are below zero in many areas, with wind chills as low as -50 degrees.
Temperatures in many cities are expected to hit record lows, 30 to 50 degrees below typical averages. Thousands of flights have been cancelled, and schools across the country have been closed.
If the earth is really becoming a scorched wasteland then why are winters still cold; why does it rain in the summer; why are there cool days in the summer and why does it still snow? These experiences cannot be used as evidence to disprove global warming.
Melting of Arctic sea ice and the resulting cold rush of wind dipping south are seen as the main temperature suppressors. The dip in the so-called "polar vortex"—which occurs when temperatures warm in the Arctic, directing cold winds southward—sent chills through the northern U.S. in January 2014, making Chicago colder than the South Pole. This phenomenon can be understood to result from the rapid melting of polar sea ice, which replaces white, reflective ice with dark, absorbent open water.
While Australia rejoices in the heaviest June snowfalls this century, climatologists say that one of the clear effects of climate change is fewer snow-bearing systems making their way from the Southern Ocean to the Australian Alps.
A rare Australian possum is being dubbed the "new polar bear" of climate change. The possums are found mainly in a far north Queensland rainforest on a single mountain range about 1000 metres above sea level.
Their numbers were in the thousands when a severe heat wave hit the area in 2005, which all but wiped out the species.
It's all too easy to blame climate change when Australia has the greatest rate of mammal extinctions in the world – since European settlement. Human activities, land clearing, feral pests and fragmented habitats have driven many animals to extinction. Weakening of environmental laws, loosening land clearing regulations, and a slash to funds for climate change are all wreaking havoc on native species.
Just four white lemuroid ringtail possums have been found in the wild and scientists say the species could soon become the first creature to be wiped out by global warming.
China's plans to reduce emissions backfire!
50 coal gasification plants, aimed in part at reducing pollution from coal-fired power plants in China's largest cities, will shift that pollution to other regions, mostly in the northwest and generate enormous amounts of carbon dioxide. Coal-to-gas, or coal gasification, is a water-intensive process that generates enormous amounts of carbon dioxide, which is the main greenhouse gas destabilizing the world's climate. China is responsible for half of the annual global coal consumption and is the world's the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, followed by the United States.
The carbon dioxide they produce would equal about an eighth of China's current total carbon dioxide emissions, which come mostly from coal-burning power plants and factories, the organisation said.
Government concedes to increase greenhouse gas emissions
Despite the moderated emissions growth outlook from previous projections, underlying factors such as population and economic growth underpin a steady increase in emissions.
This growth is bolstered by the continued strong demand for Australian energy exports, in particular, the expected significant expansion of the liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry and coal exports. Agriculture emissions are expected to increase after 2020, as production is projected to expand across all major agricultural commodities.
National vehicle kilometres travelled (VKT), by all Australian vehicles, are projected to increase by around 1.7 per cent per annum between 2007 and 2020 under the BAU assumptions. By 2020, BITRE (Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics) projects base case emissions to be close to 70.3 per cent above 1990 levels (at 105.2 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent). Australian transport demand is highly dependent on underlying economic and population growth, and relatively inelastic with regard to fuel prices.
Rightwing powerhouses realise the financial potential of denial and turn reasonable men and women into conspiracy theorists. If politicians and deniers admitted they were wrong on climate change, they might have to admit that they were wrong on everything else and their whole political identity would unravel.
Even with all the scientific data that supports global warming there are deniers that will not accept the facts. Instead, they confuse uninformed citizens by creating pseudoscientific articles and websites that are filled with unproven statements.
Australia must show some leadership in the world, and accept some responsibility towards climate change and the devastation it will cause. Instead we are falling behind as global citizens, and risk becoming an outpost on the world stage.
"This article highlights how the ABC misled the Australian public, and Australian politicians, about the Carbon Tax in the lead up to passing of the legislation in November 2011. Tony Jones shows clear understanding that net emissions growth is the real issue (in China) but doesn't question Julia Gillard when she says a Carbon Tax will "cut carbon pollution" when facts prove a net increase will occur in Australia. QANDA bias is proven. Has the ABC done such a good job omitting the primary cause of emissions growth that nobody even understands it has happened?"
Suggested segments to watch (fast forward to the referenced time slots):
Time Slot 9.17
Is this a naïve Believer who actually doesn't understand the facts because the ABC has concealed the truth from her and all other Australian citizens? This is a complex issue, yet the Carbon Tax is being defined as a simple Magic Wand. The misunderstanding of the broader issues by the audience appears to be endemic, as would be expected of a people subjected to pro-Carbon Tax and pro-Population Growth propaganda.
Tony selling a perfectly good used car ... No emissions. It has a Carbon Tax converter.
Time Slot 16.45
Julia Gillard was asked to give a straight answer on the benefits of a Carbon Tax. She said "This will cut carbon pollution by 160 million tonnes in 2020. Imagine the amount of pollution 45 million cars generate. That’s the amount of pollution we will prevent going into our atmosphere in 2020 by putting a price on carbon pollution." This was a vast misrepresentation.
- First, she didn't mention that 100 million tonnes of this would be achieved by sending billions of dollars of taxpayer's money overseas to buy carbon credits from foreign carbon brokers.
- Second, she didn't mention that over 90 million tonnes of additional emissions would occur in 2020 due to predicted trends and unofficial strategy to continue Australia's extreme and autocratically imposed population growth. (Roughly 32% emissions growth and 32% population growth occurred from 1991 to 2011.)
- Third, she didn't mention that the EU (post Kyoto Protocol) had banned use of carbon farming to generate carbon credits in its Emissions Trading Scheme because of measurement uncertainties, and that it doesn't provide an incentive for transition from fossil fuels to alternative technologies. This made up a significant proportion of the hypothetical 60 million tonnes and remains widely discredited to this day
- Fourth, she didn't mention that Australia's emissions per capita are the highest on earth and therefore population growth management must form an integral part of any plan to manage emissions in the short to medium term
The truth was that there would be a net increase of as much as 30 million tonnes, even if the hypothetical target for the Carbon Tax reduction measures was achieved. It was the ABC's responsibility, in the public interest, to ensure that this was understood by its audience. The ABC did nothing of the kind, despite having full access to the facts.
"To have a debate based on the science, people have to show respect for the scientists and I think one of the worst features of what has been a long, divisive debate in our country is the lack of respect shown to the scientists....."
For Gillard the only science she was talking about was the evidence that more carbon in the atmosphere contributes to climate change. But all the other relevant, Australia-specific, science I have referred to above has been selectively ignored. "Cherry-picking" one part of the science and ignoring the rest is disrespectfully unscientific.
Just to remind us of what science is, consider these definitions:
- A branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
- Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
- Any of the branches of natural or physical science.
- Systematized knowledge in general.
- Knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
QANDA has never addressed any of the above-mentioned inextricably related scientific facts when broadcasting on Australia's climate change response options; and did not on this occasion. Why?
The choreographed omission of these issues from audience participation was evident.
"Aiming to equip audiences to make up their own minds is consistent with the public service character of the ABC. A democratic society depends on diverse sources of reliable information and contending opinions."
"A commitment to accuracy includes a willingness to correct errors and clarify ambiguous or otherwise misleading information. Swift correction can reduce harmful reliance on inaccurate information, especially given content can be quickly, widely and permanently disseminated. Corrections and clarifications can contribute to achieving fairness and impartiality."
For years the ABC has refused to formally apologise for its misconduct. This must occur, regardless of how long its takes for legitimate conduct to overcome past misconduct.
"The ABC takes no editorial stance other than its commitment to fundamental democratic principles including the rule of law, freedom of speech and religion, parliamentary democracy and equality of opportunity."
"Fair and honest dealing is essential to maintaining trust with audiences and with those who participate in or are otherwise directly affected by ABC content."
Time Slot 28.20
Listen to this and you will hear Tony Jones explain that he understands exactly the issue he is omitting from the discussion with Julia Gillard. He says at Time Slot 30.17:
"That's the problem isn't it. There are not overall less or fewer emissions (in China due to alternative energy usage). Overall their emissions are growing rapidly."
He applies the logic to China, but then doesn't mention its relevance to Australia? He talks about overall emissions in China growing rapidly, but watches Gillard repeatedly talk of "cutting emissions by 160 million tonnes" and makes no comment about Australian emissions being expected to continue to rise rapidly due to ongoing extreme population growth and chaotic expansion of our carbon based economy?
Note also that the decline in economic Key Performance Indicators all point to extreme population growth as a culprit, yet the ABC never mentions these facts. The ABC has direct access to all these facts. ABS Statistics Government must address
The "Thank You For Saving Us" segments from young and old. Note how QANDA has placed the grateful child at the end of the show:
Time slot: 20.14
Time slot: 56.40
The youthful plea was followed by another iteration by Julia Gillard of the myth about "cutting 160 million tonnes of carbon pollution" in 2020.
QANDA has either been deliberately pro-Carbon Tax and pro-Population Growth biased in breach of its Statutory Duty, or cannot understand that it has been biased. It doesn't matter whether it was intentional or not. Manslaughter or murder; what's the difference to "the issue that has been killed" in breach of the public interest?
This misconduct by the ABC can be traced back to before 2008 and has arguably been an attack on the Australian people with the following consequences:
- It contributed to the hung parliament in 2010 because the ABC never questioned the Greens on their extreme population growth + Carbon Tax agenda
- It contributed to passing of Carbon Tax legislation as described above
- It supports continuation of undemocratic extreme population growth by stealth and without consensus
- It may be contributing to adverse economic outcomes, which would directly impact all Australians and Australia's capacity to provide philanthropic aid, both at home and abroad
In summary, the outcomes of ABC misconduct arguably bear similarities to those of organised crime.
Prime Minister Julia Gillard was playing politics when she used a speech to the Energy Policy Institute of Australia on Tuesday to blame state governments for soaring power prices.
Queensland has had a 80 per cent hike in household electricity prices in the past five years. Mr Newman and every other Premier will seize every opportunity he can to blame his predecessors for financial and policy mismanagement. Editorial - shedding light on power prices. Victoria is a good example of soaring electricity prices due to privatization.small>(Republished from comment posted at http://candobetter.net/node/2834#comment-8672)
Prime Minister Julia Gillard was playing politics when she used a speech to the Energy Policy Institute of Australia on Tuesday to blame state governments for soaring power prices.
Queensland has had a 80 per cent hike in household electricity prices in the past five years. Mr Newman and every other Premier will seize every opportunity he can to blame his predecessors for financial and policy mismanagement.
Queenslanders are also paying the price for meeting growing demand, both from an increasing population and, in the southeast in particular, a rapid take-up of air conditioners, which places big strains on the system on the hottest days of the year. High rise living means being captive to powered appliances such as air conditioning, clothes drying and heating even in the more southern states too.
Privatising the Government's electricity businesses to put them in the hands of efficiency and profit -focused private companies. Ostensibly this gives consumers a "greater choice" and "more competition" but also frees governments from the public responsibility for announcements of electricity price increase for the next 12 months. It also free governments from trade unions and industrial relations.
Ms Gillard was "trying to force privatisation" on state-owned utilities "because they can be regulated through corporation's power", Premier Campbell Newman said.
Prior to Kennett’s election, the government-owned State Electricity Commission of Victoria (SECV) was responsible for the supply of electricity in Victoria. Despite being accused of being unproductive, an Electricity Supply Association study of 1000 utilities around the world found that SECV was in the top ten for efficiency of resource use and that it was also highly efficient in terms of technical efficiency of distribution. The SECV in fact delivered affordable electricity to consumers whilst making a healthy profit. Project Victoria nonetheless called for the privatisation, deregulation and corporatisation of the State’s electricity demonstrates its ideologically driven nature.
Victoria's State Electricity Commission (SEC) generated and sold power to Victorian consumers from 1926 to 1998. In every single year it reduced the real price of power to customers. This meant that for ordinary households buying electricity took a smaller part of their earnings in each successive year. The SEC also trained thousands of apprentices in electricity and other workplace skills. Eventually, many of these highly skilled tradesmen found their way into the wider workforce. Now, “skills shortages” are being used to justify increasing permanent immigration to Australia.
In a similar manner, the SEC also trained engineers and other skilled workers, not all of whom chose to remain in the commission's employ. Either way, the community got the benefit of skills-training provided by the SEC. This is the same scenario with public transport, Gas and Fuel, and Board of Works (public water supplies) being privatised.
In 2000-1 the price of electricity in the National Electricity Market increased by 60%. When retail deregulation was introduced in Victoria, price caps continued with ‘safety net’ prices being set by the government to avoid the political implications of these large price increases. Privatisation of electricity in Victoria had failed to deliver any increased generating capacity and generator breakdowns were threatening blackouts.
A new report, Victoria in Future 2012, shows that the state's population is expected to grow from 5.6 million to 7.3 million over the next 20 years, an average annual growth rate of 1.3 per cent.
Melbourne's population is expected to grow at the same speed, from 4.1 million to 5.4 million, while regional Victoria's growth rate will be slightly slower, at 1.2 per cent.
Make room state population set to soar
Reduced reliability a possible cost-saver
According to a new report, about $2.5 billion over 15 years could be saved if electricity distribution reliability was slightly reduced, according to the Australian Energy Market Commission's (AEMC) review of rule changes for the state government.
More than $11 billion is poured into power infrastructure to stop "blackouts" occurring in peak periods, totalling about four days every year. Reducing reliability is an assault on productivity, on our lifestyles, and on our energy bills.
Now, we could be forced to compromise electricity reliability to contain the costs of power.
The real costs of supplying energy are in distribution rather than generation. The "poles and wires" must be replaced, maintained, and also expanded to cope with population growth. Thus, reliability will be compromised to pay for economic growth.
While Julia Gillard blames the States for the surging costs of power even before the introduction of the carbon tax, it is Federal policies that drives our population growth.
Julia Gillard will pledge to act on soaring electricity prices that add billions of dollars to household costs. She is blaming state governments for adding at least $7 billion to electricity costs over the next four years. Ms Gillard will cite the dividend payments to state governments as a key reason for the price shock being felt by ordinary households, as they help cover the cost of the state dividends.
NSW households have seen their electricity prices rise by 18 per cent both this year and last. Other states have seen comparable increases.
Half of this year's increase was due to the carbon tax and renewable energy requirements, some of which were introduced by former state ALP governments. The other causes were those identified by the Prime Minister: increased charges for the price-regulated poles and wires networks. With 30 more years of “sustainable growth”, the poles and wires network will keep rolling out!
Julia Gillard's conversion to privatisation might be self-serving in seeking to draw attention away from the carbon tax, but it also offers the prospect of bipartisan support for full privatisation of the electricity supply industry.
Victoria's Planning Minister Matthew Guy recently announced the creation of 6 new suburbs. All these new consumers, over 60,000 per year, will need either upgraded, or new, "poles and wires". In Victoria, retail prices are totally unregulated.
The costs and impacts of a growth-based economy are passed onto the people, whose hip pockets will be raided to pay for basic utilities. The constraints to growth are becoming clearer, and economic growth is becoming more uneconomic.
A Michigan State University study has found that for each 1% increase in population, emissions increase by a bit more than a 1% increase in most nations. If Australia did not grow its population then by 2020 there would be almost no increase in carbon emissions. The Stable Population Party of Australia has called upon the Labor Government and the Greens to explain how their support for rapid population growth is consistent with attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions – or admit it’s just green-wash.
The Stable Population Party http://www.populationparty.org.au was formally registered by the Australian Electoral Commission on 23 Sep 2010. The party will stand candidates in every state and territory at the next federal election.
"Carbon tax just abating emissions of six million extra people:" Stable Population Party
Australia’s record population growth of six million people (or 30%) from 2000 to 2020 makes Labor’s carbon emissions reduction target of 5% in the same period implausible and disingenuous.
In the lead up to World Population Day on July 11, a review of population growth and carbon emissions has confirmed a direct correlation. Michigan State University’s Thomas Dietz outlines in Nature Climate Change that, “Looking at most nations during the last few decades we find that for each 1% increase in population, we get a bit more than a 1% increase in emissions.”
Professor Bob Birrell of the Centre for Population and Urban Research at Monash University Monash agrees that population and carbon emissions are inextricably linked.
“In the absence of population growth to 2020, there would be very little growth in emissions in Australia, making it far easier to achieve the 5% reduction target, with or without a carbon tax. The current big Australia population growth means there’s virtually no chance,” said Professor Birrell.
Carbon emissions rise in line with population numbers
“Carbon emissions historically rise in line with population. What’s clear is that the government must first address the population question if it is to manage the carbon emissions issue. Increasing population whilst trying to cut carbon emissions is like trying to empty the bath with the tap running,” said William Bourke, Founder and President of the federally registered Stable Population Party.
He added that a 5% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from 28.8 tonnes per head in 2000 to 27.3 tonnes per head in 2020 could have been achievable with or without a carbon tax. Now, however, due to record population growth of 6 million people (or 30%) from 2000 to 2020, Australia needs to reduce our per capita emissions to around 21 tonnes per head. This implies a 27% per capita decrease just to get a 5% total decrease.
"If 27% is anywhere near achievable, imagine what we could do with a stable population!" enthused Mr Bourke. He explained that a stable population is a basis of Europe’s 2020 target to at least 20% below 1990 emissions.
Imagine how much lower Europe's emissions will be than Australia's in 2050 after the European baby-boomers have died if Europe continues on its low immigration policy and Australia continues its high immigration policy.
“More people means more carbon emissions, and a carbon tax without real environmental gain," said William Bourke.
"Under the Labor/Greens scheme the carbon tax is effectively a population growth tax – and a zero-sum game. As one of the highest per capita emitters of greenhouse gases in the world, it is critical that we play a role in stabilising our population and reducing our total emissions. The Stable Population Party supports action to reduce emissions and promote energy efficiency, but a stable population with a united global solution is vital. Without this we are simply exporting jobs."
Mr Bourke called upon Labor and The Greens to explain how their support for rapid population growth is consistent with attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions – or admit it’s just green-wash.
“A stable population would help lower carbon emissions and ensure a more sustainable use of the Earth’s resources,"
If you have anything you would like to raise, which is likely to be of interest to our site's visitors, which is not addressed by other articles, please add your comments #comment-form">here.
Comments made on previous "Miscellaneous comments" page from 1 Jun 2012 can be found here.
Comments on this page have been closed. Please add further comments here.- Ed, 19 July
New French Minister for Industry in France says globalisation is extremist policy and that France, Europe and other westernised countries need to protect themselves from total free-market doctrine. He also proposes external taxes, including on carbon emissions for imported products. This is a fascinating interview for citizens of Anglophone countries who feel that free-market ideology has replaced democracy.
This is a transcript and translation of an interview with Arnaud Montebourg, the new French Minister for reestablishing manufacturing industry. The interview took place on France2's Journal Télévisé on Thursday 17 May 2012 at 2000h. The interviewers were Julien Bugier (the news presenter) and Fabien Amias.
Interview with Arnaud Montebourg, the Minister for Reestablishing Productive Industry.
750,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in the past
10 years and 900 factories have closed in the last three years in France. Ten years ago 28 per cent of France's economy was manufacturing. Now it is 13 or 14 per cent. According to Minister Montebourg, France is "deindustrialising even faster than the UK which has the reputation at the moment of having almost no manufacturing left at all."
Minister Arnaud Montebourg is the author of a book, Vote for Deglobalisation, published nearly a year ago.
He is quoted as saying in it, "Globalisation is nothing other than an extremist system."
He is asked by a France 2 news interviewer if he feels he can maintain the same position now that he is in government.
ARNAUD MONTEBOURG: "We need above all to protect ourselves. [Globalisation] is an extremism because without loyalty or law, without any limit, it has placed our territories, our industrial system, enterprises, wage earners - in direct competition with countries which have ... wages 30 times lower than ours.
Social protection there is virtually absent, whilst wage earners [in France] after two centuries of social struggle have fair working conditions. And this competition has destroyed our industrial system. Furthermore, it has not greatly progressed emerging countries either. Some countries have escaped [poverty] and others have not. They have become poor."
FABIEN AMIAS: "There are countries elsewhere where industry, as it has in Europe and France, has been reduced more than in France, despite being subjected to the same competition as their neighbours, [from] China, India, Brazil .."
ARNAUD MONTEBOURG: "It's true, because we failed to protect ourselves. The protection methods used by our competitors in that economic war are redoubtable. They use everything that we forbid ourselves to use! They control their money. Our money is left to a central bank that decides without consulting us. They use sovereign funds. We are at pains to control our businesses and we leave them, finally, to be treated as self-service by those who come and do their shopping in Europe and capture our technologies, send our patents away, and leave with them, after having closed our businesses and go elsewhere. Our work is to protect ourselves and to re-arm ourselves. That is the meaning of this 'reestablishment'of productive industry. We will reestablish industry if we ourselves find the resources in ourselves to reestablish it."
Question from JEAN-FRANCOIS ROUBAUD, President of The Federation of Small and Medium Businesses [Confederation General des Petits et Moyens Entreprises.(CGPME)]. "How do you expect to effect the reestablishment of industry in our country without the international exchanges that are necessary even if we would prefer not to have them?" [This question is answered much later in this interview.]
Unilateral protection for renewed industries
Montebourg is quoted by the interviewers as saying he would "Engage unilateral protection measures for renaissant industries." He is then asked for examples.
ARNAUD MONTEBOURG: "To start with, this is a European strategy. And Francois Hollande, besides, in his campaign expressed himself very strongly on the necessity that Europe, if she is to be 'Open' should not be 'offered'[like a sacrifice]. Today we are unprotected against globalisation. [He uses the metaphor of a 'globalisation sieve'].
EVen the European Commission is now recommending greater protection than any that existed before. Let us be clear. It is about reorienting the European Union which is currently as ineffective as a sieve against globalisation. And we will need to ask for reciprocity: that which the Chinese, the Americans, the Brazilians --.
The Brazilians have just decided come up with an incredible strategy: they have decided to tax every iPhone made by Apple in China that comes across Brazilian borders. The consequence is that Apple has decided to build a factory in Brazil. It is obvious that the European Union alone in our European continent has the power to do that. Therefore ..."
FABIEN AMIAS: "That means that we ... that Francois HOlland, the head of state, and the government and at the European level ... that kind of protectionism ...that kind of tax for every product that is produced..."
ARNAUD MONTEBOURG: "We spoke before of 'extremism'. Globalisation without limit is extreme. It has to be moderated. And I want to reply to Mr Roubaud [Refer above], by saying to him that we will not manage to survive in exports on the world market whilst wearing crutches while others are using rollerskates. We would remain handicapped. So we have, in a way, demanded what Francois Hollande has called 'reciprocity': That which you do to us, we demand the right to do it back."
JULIEN BUGIER, News Presenter: "And that's reasonable."
Externalising Carbon Taxes
ARNAUD MONTEBOURG:"It's already on the agenda. For example, the Carbon Tax - rather than inflicting it on ourselves ... we are talking about an external tax!"
FABIEN AMIAS: "Which was revoked the other day by the Constitutional Counsel ..."
ARNAUD MONTBOURG: "No, this is another... It's an external tax..."
FABIEN AMIAS: Gestures an apology, and for Montebourg to continue on...
ARNAUD MONTEBOURG: "What I want to say is that these are measures which are being put in place, including in all the European countries. It is part of the European discussion about the reorientation of the European Union."
JULIEN BUGIER,News Presenter) to interviewer, Fabien: "Last point, Fabien."
Anti-dumping and French state should buy French products
FABIEN AMIAS: "Procedure. You have spoken about procedure: 'Anti-dumping French-style'. That is, we no longer sell to those who practice disloyally low prices."
ARNAUD MONTEBOURG: Nods. "I can tell you that even President Sarkozi thought that it was necessary to use French companies for all French public purchases, that is to say, a kind of protectionism. So, today, there is a movement in all westernised countries that have lost their manufacturing industries, to organise a bit of protection!"
FABIEN AMIAS: "I have a very specific question. The Post Office very recently chose to use Taiwanese motor scooters, to the detriment of Peugeot scooters. If you had been Minister for Industry at that time, would you have allowed them to do that?"
ARNAUD MONTEBOURG: "I think that our responsibility is to reorientate public purchases towards our small and medium enterprises, which need the state to purchase [from them] in order to grow, expand, hire staff, get market share, augment their margins, in order to develop in their territory in their turn. So, this project is a project which will require that the European Union evolve its totally economic liberal doctrine. That is, the doctrine that says,'Listen, it's forbidden to give preference to to local industry.' We wish to advance this debate and I believe that opinions are evolving in Europe."
[Translation by Sheila Newman]
Source of material: Journal Télévisé
With the revelation that the recently released carbon tax would exclude petrol, there was much protest and disappointment from climate change activists. But once again everyone missed the elephant in the room as far as meeting Australia’s emissions targets – the immigration rate.
With the revelation that the recently released carbon tax would exclude petrol, there was much protest and disappointment from climate change activists. But once again everyone missed the elephant in the room as far as meeting Australia’s emissions targets – the immigration rate. In the recently published online book Sleepwalking to Catastrophe first-time gen Y author Fiona Heinrichs argues in the same vein as Dick Smith’s Population Crisis. There are two sections in Fiona’s book which particularly highlight the elephant in the room: the hypocrisy of liberals in denying population impacts by focusing on consumption and modeling which verifies the ineffectiveness of the carbon tax without immigration reform. The former point is made in the following excerpt from Chapter 2:
environmental groups have had a mixed attitude towards population. Often they have a tendency to regard population growth as not a significant factor affecting environmental degradation, with resource use and consumption being more important. Global social justice issues typically come before local environmental sustainability.
The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) was relatively inactive on the immigration and population issue; however, this was within the context that questioning such issues threatened one’s career. As Ian Lowe, president of the ACF and Australia 2020 Summit participant experienced first hand:
[Lowe] explicitly rejects the per capita consumption argument and has stated that reducing per capita consumption won’t solve environmental problems unless we also stabilise population.
Yet even with Lowe the media rarely reports his concern over population. When Mark O’Connor wrote to him in 2006 asking why this was so, he replied, at length, with many examples of how his frequent references to population were ignored or excised by journalists. He also described how he was sacked as a columnist from one paper for insisting on it. He found that the most biased media were the grossly pro-growthist Murdoch papers.
Recently though, the ACF has done good work in filing a formal nomination of population growth as a ‘key threatening process’ to Australia’s biodiversity under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth). Interestingly enough, this action opens up the idea of suing the Federal government for the social and ecological damage done by its mass immigration policy, as has been attempted against governments in this on other jurisdictions in relation to climate change.
Ecosocialists Ian Angus and Simon Butler, after making the standard argument that to be critical of immigration is to be a ‘racist’, then argue that emissions from ‘carbon dirty’ industries in Canada, such as oil extraction from the Alberta Tar Sands are perhaps more worrying sources of greenhouse gas emissions than population growth. Despite this claim, it does not follow that ‘the relationship between population growth and environmental destruction is shaped by how we use our resources, not by the number of people who use them’. Population growth, along with affluence/resource use and technology, determine the environmental impact. As Sara Parkin, former politician for the Green Party of England and Wales notes in the Foreword to the Forum for the Future publication, Growing Pains: Population and Sustainability in the UK:
As advisors to Barack Obama have pointed out, the future for everyone will be dominated by scarcity – of resources, of land, of airspace (for CO2 emissions) … The more people there are the harder that will be. The maths of sustainability is simple – the equation requires fewer people, consuming less – yet we find it difficult to talk about either.
A Joint Statement by Fifty-Eight of the World’s Scientific Academics, Population Summit of the World’s Scientific Academies said:
‘The magnitude of the threat to the ecosystem is linked to human population size and resource use per person.’ Also: ‘There are warnings that the earth is finite and that natural systems are being pushed even closer to their limits.’
The Australian Academy of Science, Population 2040: Australia’s Choice agreed and concluded that Australia should aim for a stable population of no more than 23 million by 2040.
Penny Wong, Climate Change Minister in the government of Kevin Rudd and now Finance Minister, was asked: ‘Australia’s population is projected to increase by 65% … by 2050. During the same period, the government is committed to cutting our carbon emissions by 60%. Aren’t those goals or facts mutually exclusive?’
‘Absolutely not…Whereas the last few hundred years…growth in our carbon pollution has essentially tracked our population and economic growth … The key issue here is breaking that link, not trying to reduce population.’
Wong’s style of thinking is replicated in South Australia; the driest state in the driest continent on Earth by fellow South Australian Labor Party politician Premier Mike Rann, who on the one hand tries to be seen as doing something about climate change, while on the other seeks to double South Australia’s population by 2050, with no limit in sight. Professor Emeritus, Albert Bartlett, Physics, University of Colorado at Bounder, has shown the mathematical absurdity of claims such as Wong’s:
The average growth rate needed to increase Australia’s population 65% by the year 2050 is only 1.252 percent per year. The average annual reduction of emissions needed to reduce emissions 60% by 2050 is 2.291 percent per year. Add these two rates (1.252 + 2.291) and you will find that to accommodate the projection population growth AND to reduce overall annual emissions by 60% would require an annual rate of decrease of per capita emissions of polluting greenhouse gases of 3.543 percent per year over the next forty years. The per capita annual emissions would have to be cut in half every 19.6 years! What is the base for Minister Wong’s belief that this enormous reduction can be achieved, year after year for forty years? What progress towards this goal has Australia made during Ms. Wong’s leadership in her present position of Climate Change Minister? Does Minister Wong really believe this can be done? Or is she basing her policy recommendations on Walt Disney’s First Law:
‘Wishing will make it so.’
Let’s look a little farther. The present rate of growth Australia’s population is quoted as being 1.8 percent per year which is significantly higher than the 1.252 percent per year assumed above. If this current higher rate continues, Australia’s population will double by 2050 and would reach a density of one person per square metre over the whole continent in just over 700 years! Surely the Minister will admit that population growth in Australia will stop itself through starvation, pollution, warfare and the lack of resources long before the population density reaches one person per square metre. The critical question for the Minister then is,
‘Should Australia encourage continued population growth or should the people of Australia act to stop the growth before Nature stops it?’
If the Minister feels that Australians should act to stop population growth before Nature stops the growth, then why not stop it now while there are still some resources and some open spaces? It would be very helpful for the people of Australia if Climate Change Minister Wong would give these facts and options some serious consideration and then report the results of her considerations promptly to the people of Australia.
However, with the recent portfolio shuffle following Julia Gillard’s election to government, such revelations now lie with the new Climate Change and Energy Efficiency Minister Greg Combet. As to whether or not Minister Combet will come any closer to answering such pressing questions, only time will tell.
In the following excerpt from Chapter 4, Fiona makes the second notable point that a carbon tax implemented without stabilising population cannot reduce total emissions:
Prime Minister Gillard was told by her own Department, in a confidential briefing given in September 2010 that the quality of life in Australian big cities, measured by declining indexes of livability, is falling and could get worse. A National Institute of Labour Studies report concluded that a high level of net overseas migration would have substantial adverse impacts on the quality of Australia’s natural and built environments. Unless high levels of migration are cut, Sydney and Melbourne will require over 430,000 ha of new housing land and the loss in agricultural land will result in the need for imported key food stuffs, including dairy, lamb and vegetables, by 2050. Even if immigration ceased altogether, Australian capital cities will still grow by around 50 per cent within two decades, with a cost to each resident for congestion of $ 1,000 per year. For the present immigration level, capital cities will grow by 1.5 times within 50 years. At a net overseas migration level of 260,000 per annum, demand for oil will double by 2050 and greenhouse gas emissions from fuel combustion will increase by 200 percent from present levels. Australian Treasury modeling accepts that greenhouse gas emissions grow, other things being equal, when population numbers grow. Bob Birrell and Ernest Healy did a disaggregation of Treasury forecasts to obtain an estimation of the contribution of population to greenhouse gas production and concluded that ‘83 percent of the forecast increase in greenhouse emissions to 2020 will be attributable to population growth’. Further, Jorgenson and Clark examined data from 1960 to 2005 and found a large and positive association between national-level population growth and anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions for both developed and developing countries, an association which has been so for at least the past 50 years. So the pivotal question is:
What is the point of introducing an emissions trading scheme or a carbon tax or any such policy on already struggling Australian working families, when Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions will continue to surge into the future anyway under the federal government’s unreformed surging immigration rate?
Any reduction in emissions made through a cap or tax would be cancelled out by the subsequent increase in emissions of aggravated population expansion. Targets for reducing emissions cannot be reached without targets for reducing population growth. With population growth expected to contribute to 83 percent of increases in Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions to 2020, surely any passionate climate change activist would tackle this environmental problem through immigration reform first? The much publicised battle everyday Australian working families currently face struggling to pay their power bills, reduced quality of life from restricted water and power usage and genuine environmental conservation efforts are made a mockery of when the federal government sabotages these efforts through its unsustainable immigration policy. Mark O’Connor and William Lines make the same observation in Overloading Australia: How Governments and Media Dither and Deny on Population and subsequently suggest Australians should waste water as:
our analysis shows that until we get restraint in population there is no point in citizens saving water. If they do, this will not mean that their neighbours get more water for their gardens, or that tougher restrictions will be postponed. Rather, it means that politicians will be able to continue their irresponsible dream of putting over a million extra people in each of our three biggest cities over the next 25 years (and proportionately even more into Perth). So long as we have such misguided leaders, any water-restraint shown by the individual citizen will only allow our politicians to persist longer in their folly, and will lead – quite soon – to even worse shortages of water, plus many other environmental disasters.
Certainly, the currently planned carbon tax should at the very least be postponed until after the government implements immigration reform first, and then reassessed on its capacity to reduce emissions.
Certainly indeed. Interestingly, Fiona’s book was published in May, so politicians, journalists, climate change activists and various public figures had plenty of time to digest her ideas before the current carbon tax was released. If only they’d listened to a gen Y female and Dick Smith for that matter.
If the reason for a carbon tax is primarily to change behaviour, what is the behaviour that households can change to reduce their carbon tax payments?
Curiously, the same behaviour will reduce waste of resources as well as cut emissions. We will have a User’s economy, not a Consumers’ economy.
But everyone’s job cannot be kept. Many are wasteful. New jobs are waiting in plenty, if only they are funded. And we certainly do not need more population to do the wasteful jobs. More population means the need for more resources to keep them alive. It means that farmland will be sacrificed for towns.
An individual’s behaviour seems puny. All one person can do is save money by not spending on wasting resources and costing unnecessary carbon emissions. And setting an example that more individuals can follow. And can at last reach the Movers and Shakers who make the great difference. Jobs will be lost; jobs will be made.
How can you cut your budget by half or even a quarter?
Cut use of petrol. Replace using the big family car for all one-person journeys with a minicar or public transport for commuting, walking, and cycling. (Minicars? Australian-made?) Only use a power-mower for vast expanses and civic ‘English’ lawns. Households save petrol, fertiliser, and water by mowing ‘Australian’ lawns with a good hand-mower, not a power mower. (Resurrect the good Australian hand-mower – present ones on sale are hopeless.) Australian lawns that die down in summer and don’t worry about flatweeds, Nature strips are ‘no-mow’ tough plants, rather than lawns.
Cut use of power. Reduce use of air-conditioning and central heating by sensible building practices, curtains, blinds and passages, and by heating or cooling only the rooms you are in, and dressing for the weather.
Use electric household appliances only when necessary. Half the time the big appliances are not necessary; exercise with manual appliances is just as good.
Throw less out into landfill or energy-intensive recycling. You save money when you buy for quality that lasts and refuse to buy goods that quickly obsolesce or fall to bits. All those ads that cry ‘Cheap!’ are misleading.
Cut your bills by knowing what is in your frig, and have recipes to use food that is not used.
Only buy furniture that can be repaired. Rubber latex mattresses are recommended rather than inner-springs, except for the obese who would wear them out; twenty year’s use, and then the rubber can be re-used.
Cut the loss of resources and carbon emissions in buying clothes you will not love, or cannot stand washing. Love your clothes and renovate them with accessories rather than throwing them out. Children can learn to love and be proud of the clothes they get handed down in the family as well as their new gear. Sewing and mending while listening to the radio or conversation are arts worth learning.
Hot water bills can be cut. Shampoo your hair weekly rather than daily; it will enjoy that, it is better for it, and it cuts your electricity and water bills. It’s amazing how much is saved if a kettle is filled only one cup more than you need. Go further , and get solar panels.
Gardens can stop using fertilisers and water unnecessarily; tanks, compost and worm farms are cost savers.
Many of these practices mean less carbon tax for the economy, not just yourselves.
If you think this is being told what to do - you can easily work out how to save carbon emissions and wasting resources yourselves. All those stand-by lights - -
It may seem a drop in the scheme of things, when the MacMansion building opposite you is contributing to the GDP by pulling down a beautiful single story home and employing about a dozen men for a year building the 90-square monster over almost an entire block.
But what good does this really do to the country, in the long run? You and your other neighbours can cut the value of such Conspicuous Consumption when you turn the goal of householders to Conspicuous Saving.
And what of the jobs that will go if you do not spend as much on waste? Think of all the jobs that are needed when the cry is ‘We need more population to do all the jobs’! If all the jobs that need to be done were being done, there would be no unemployment, and much less waste.
Broadcaster and Naturalist David Attenborough said in a speech to the Royal Society of Arts in London on 10 March, hosted by its president, the Duke of Edinburgh….....”...we can all see that every extra person is – or will be – an extra victim of climate change – though the poor will undoubtedly suffer more than the rich. Yet not a word of it appeared in the voluminous documents emerging from the Copenhagen and Cancun Climate Summits”.
Why this strange silence? I meet no one who privately disagrees that population growth is a problem. No one – except flat-earthers – can deny that the planet is finite.
'Climate change is undoubtedly going to get worse; the only question is how much and how fast, he said. I believe that we somehow have got to prevent the human population from increasing as fast as it is doing.
Big population preferred over tackling climate change
John Howard and Kevin Rudd were both advocates for large populations. Because a growing population equates to a growing economy, until you reach the tipping point of no return on environmental/climate change. No politician has the foresight to see this.
Former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd gave priority for a "big Australia" over tackling climate change, the ‘greatest moral challenge of our time’.
Melbourne University reproduction expert Roger Short argues that Australia’s population growth – apparently increasing by one person every two minutes - is out of control, increasing the rate of global warming.
High density developments create hot cities
While Victorians are supposed to be reducing greenhouse gas emissions, at the same time our government is pushing for high rise developments and population growth.
High density housing advocates say planning policies must compel higher density in order to save energy and cut down on greenhouse gas emissions. However studies using a diversity of methods demonstrate the converse. The Australian Conservation Foundation Consumption Altas calculation of per capita greenhouse gas emissions shows that those living in high-density areas are greater than for those living in low-density areas. Our cities are becoming hotter and less sustainable.
High-rise developments mean that residents are much more reliant on non-renewable energy and have higher per capita greenhouse gas emissions than those in lower single houses with gardens, solar energy, recycling, trees and shade, and water tanks.
A combination of climate change and urban growth will push temperatures higher in cities worldwide, say researchers. Dr Richard Betts, a climate scientist in the UK, and colleagues found not only do cities retain more heat than rural areas do but hot cities will grow even hotter as the climate warms and cities grow.
By mid-century, night-time temperatures in cities could rise by more than 5.6°C, they say.
As cities grow warmer, it will become even more important to invest in urban cooling strategies, the study suggests, such as white roofs, green spaces, calculated window placement and other architectural decisions that allow buildings to spit out fewer greenhouse gases and less heat. This means more investments and infrastructure needed for high density buildings to replace what Nature provides naturally – and free!.
Food security taken for granted
Climate change will affect the availability and cost of reliable food, water and energy supplies. It will threaten remaining natural ecosystems and biodiversity and increase storm intensity and the likelihood of both wildfire and heat-related deaths.
The Third Intergeneration Report’s “projection” (or social-engineering) is that Australia’s population is likely to reach 35.9 million by 2050.
The people of Australia should be consulted, and respected, not be manipulated by the economic interests of the business elite and the academics entrenched in the economics of constant growth when the priority should be the people of Australia. Population growth can’t be ignored in the context of anthropogenic climate change.
Australians greenhouse gas commitment
The Rudd Labor Government pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Australia by 5 per cent relative to year 2000 levels but this cannot be achieved if Australia’s population grows as projected. Treasury modelling indicates that, with business-as-usual, emissions will reach 774 million tonnes by 2020, 40 per cent above the 2000 level. However, it is set against government encouraged population growth of 20% by then.
Braking the rise in Earth's population would be a major help in the fight against global warming, according to an unprecedented UN report published in 2009. It draws a link between demographic pressure and climate change. "Population growth is among the factors influencing total emissions in industrialised as well as developing countries," it says.
Our growing population and relatively emissions-intensive economy means that we will have higher adjustments costs than many other developed countries to reach ostensibly similar goals. Our government's posturing on climate change and ghg emissions is purely rhetoric while we in Australia continue to boost our population. How can we be taken seriously, internationally, with such hypocritical attitudes – that we can continue to grow our population and economy but other nations must reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and “save” the planet.
Sir David Attenborough said, there is no major problem facing our planet that would not be easier to solve if there were fewer people and no problem that does not become harder (with more people).
A population growth of 20% by 2020, and at the same time a symbolic reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, is inherently contradictory and people will be forced to pay an ineffective carbon tax.
While human populations expand, renewable energy sources must continue to outstrip increasing outputs of carbon emissions to achieve this target. The carbon tax will simply burden the people of Australia, and net greenhouse emissions reduction will be outside their control.
According to a global financial services study, a carbon tax will have to be set at $60 a tonne -- three times the expected $20 tax to be set next year -- to force electricity generators to switch from dirty brown coal in southeastern Australia to cleaner gas to reduce greenhouse emissions.
With privatisation of the power suppliers, the market forces needed for them to switch to renewable energy, rather than passing on the costs to consumers, would be considerable.
The carbon tax will be a financial burden on families, and businesses, and do little to actually address climate change while at the same time our population continues to boom!