It's the typical response of "It doesn't work? Do more of the same!"
It's humanity playing God and trying to do better than Nature. It's
like in medicine, where a person is given a drug, then another drug
to counteract some of the side effects, then a third drug to correct
the second... (some years ago, doctors in California went on strike.
While they didn't work, the death rate REDUCED!)

The way to go is not to stuff up the planet's ecosystem in new,
immensely expensive ways, but the change the entire way people think.
And I am afraid that's a much harder task.

:(
Bob

--------------------------------------------------
Dr Bob Rich
http://bobswriting.com
http://anxietyanddepression-help.com
http://mudsmith.net
Commit random acts of kindness
---------------------------------------------------

Hi all

This was on the ABC steam radio this morning  (Sunday 11th) - I think it
needs serious discussion in these groups.  This discussion brings up some
really interesting (and perverse) aspects to foreign policy with regard to
climate change - which also need adressing.

This is why public radio is SO important!!!  Atta boy - ABC!

Hugh






http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2009/2444935.htm

11 January 2009
The climate engineers

Listen Now - 11012009 |Download Audio - 11012009

For years it's been one of the science community's great taboos but the
idea of global climate control is starting to be openly discussed. Ideas
like placing giant mirrors in space or firing sulphur particles into the
stratosphere to cool the planet are no longer just in the domain of science
fiction. Many scientists now believe the time for these ideas will come.
Reporter, Wendy Carlisle (This program was originally broadcast on 6th
April 2008.)

Read the following articles:

Albedo Enhancement by Stratospheric Sulfur Injections
Climate Change: The Uncertainties, the Certainties, and what they Imply
About Action
Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming




Show Transcript | Hide Transcript

THEME: El Nino

Wendy Carlisle: Hello, I'm Wendy Carlisle, and this week on Background
Briefing, how a very big idea has come out of the shadows.

With rapid Arctic ice melts and rising emissions, scientists are now
beginning to think planet earth could be running out of time.

And they've begun to talk about what's possibly the most dangerous techno
fix of all time: artificially manipulating the climate to cool the planet
down.

It would be the equivalent of hitting the panic button.

David Keith: Now suppose that space aliens arrived - maybe they are going
to land at the UN Headquarters down the road here, or maybe they will pick
a smarter spot, but suppose they arrive and they give you a box, and the
box has two nobs. One knob is the knob for controlling global temperature,
and maybe another knob is a knob for controlling CO2 concentrations. You
might imagine that we would fight wars over that box, because we have no
way to agree about where to set the knobs. No global governance and
different people will have different places they want it set. Now I don't
think that's going to happen, it's not very likely, but we are building
that box, the scientists and engineers of the world are building it piece
by piece in their labs.

Wendy Carlisle: This is the voice of one of the world's top atmospheric
scientists, Canada's Professor David Keith, speaking at a conference in
California late last year. And he's describing how bit by bit scientists
are learning how to artificially control the climate in a process called
climate engineering.

David Keith: Even when they're doing it for other reasons, even when
they're thinking they're just working on protecting the environment, they
have no interest in crazy ideas like engineering the whole planet. They
develop science that makes it easier and easier to do.

Wendy Carlisle: As a former lead author on UN Climate Change Reports, his
credentials are impeccable. But he's also a maverick.

David Keith is at the forefront of a group of scientists raising what must
be the most unpopular subject in science: climate engineering. It's a
political bombshell and it could be highly dangerous, no-one really knows.

There are lots of reasons David Keith thinks climate engineering is a bad
idea. But he's calling for a brutally honest debate.

David Keith: And so I guess my view on this is not that I want to do it, I
do not, but that we should move this out of the shadows and talk about it
seriously, because sooner or later we will be confronted with decisions
about this, and it's better if we think hard about it, even if we want to
think hard about reasons why we should never do it.

Wendy Carlisle: And on Background Briefing today, you'll hear why
engineering the climate, as far out and crazy as it sounds, is now being
seriously talked about by some of the world's leading scientists and
thinkers.

Nobel Prizewinning economist, Professor Tom Schelling.

Tom Schelling: Back then, if I spoke to an audience about geo engineering,
half the audience thought I was crazy and the other half thought I was
dangerous. And I think scientists who spoke about it or wrote about it
found that they either weren't taken seriously or they were taken too
seriously and were believed to be mad scientists who wanted to try to
control the climate, and I think now it's become a respectable subject to
talk about, and write about, and I think over the coming years it's bound
to receive a lot more attention.

Wendy Carlisle: Not all of them agree with it, in fact there's strong
opposition to climate engineering in many quarters, not just because it
might do more damage than good, but because it could trigger wars.

Thinking on climate engineering has done a complete u-turn in the last 20
years. From Colombia University, Professor Wally Broecker.

Wally Broecker: I used to say that if people had a list of things that they
didn't want scientists to study, probably top of the list would be
dependence of intelligence on race, you know, are Chinese really smarter
than the rest of us? And then No.2 would be engineering the climate.

Wendy Carlisle: In the mid-1980s, he and a colleague, John Knuckles,
decided to look at some modelling by a Russian scientist that suggested an
overheated planet could be cooled by shooting sulphur particles into the
stratosphere, and they concluded that the Russian was right.

But their research was never intended to give political leaders an excuse
not to act on global warming.

It was meant to be a last resort.

Wally Broecker: When Knuckles and I wrote this paper we entitled it an
insurance policy against a bad CO2 trip. So we were thinking of it as a
bail-out, saying 'Well if nothing is done and the climate becomes
everybody's evaluation a lot worse than it is now, then people are going to
demand that we bail it out and that's the way to do it.' So we weren't
proposing it as a solution to the CO2 problem, we were sort of proposing it
as a way to salvage the situation if things went bad.

Wendy Carlisle: Their modelling was based on mimicking volcanic explosions
which shot sulphur particles into the stratosphere.

But it wouldn't be without aesthetic problems.

Wally Broecker: I think one of the principal side effects would be a
psychological one. If we did this, we'd never have a blue sky day again,
because the things we added up there would bleach the sky, so it would
always be a pale blue or white, and that would be worldwide.

In a sense the end of really blue sky days which sort of you know I think
around here anyway, and probably in Europe and places where you don't have
many, they buoy people's spirits, don't they. If you had them all the time,
maybe like cloudy days, I don't know, you Aussies have a lot of blue sky
days.

Wendy Carlisle: Professor Broecker told Background Briefing he thought that
climate engineering was, 'the equivalent of screwing with the atmosphere'.
But like many scientists, he's worried that when global warming starts to
bite, the public will demand action to cool the planet.

Wally Broecker: Doubling of CO2 in models would say is 3-1/2 degrees
warming. I think that's going to dry out Australia like mad; you ought to
be scared to death of that. You're going to really be dry. Dry, dry, dry,
dry. And you know, that's going to cause sea levels to go up and so forth.
So even doubling is going to cause big changes, but if we don't get serious
about it, we're going to triple or quadruple the CO2, no doubt about it.
And that's going to drive us into the realm where people are going to
scream, 'We've got to cool the planet off!'

Wendy Carlisle: But Professor Broecker's paper was never published. Not
because it was junk science, it wasn't, but because the scientific
community decided that a bit of self-censorship was in order.

Wally Broecker: And we wrote a paper about it, and we sent it around to
prominent people in the field, and they said, 'By all means don't publish
this; the world is not ready for it.' So we just put it on the shelf.

Wendy Carlisle: The view was that if politicians discovered you could
artificially cool the planet, they'd do nothing to cut emissions.

Now 20 years later, there's been a sea-change. Instead of shutting the
debate down, it's now game on. And the trigger for the debate has come from
impeccable quarters.

Just two years ago at the end of 2006, the Nobel Prizewinning scientist, Dr
Paul Crutzen, the man who received the Prize for his groundbreaking work on
the ozone layer, wrote an important editorial under the heading:

'Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulphur injections: a contribution to
resolve a policy dilemma.'

In lay terms, it was about the possible use of technology to bounce the
sun's rays off the planet, to slow down the rate of warming.

Some of the ideas he discussed were things like pumping sunlight-reflecting
particles into the stratosphere, using balloons or artillery guns. Another
idea was to create little 'nuclear winters', using soot.

Professor Crutzen's essay was clearly written in anger and frustration, at
the lack of action to reduce emissions. He pointed out that messing with
the stratosphere could blow a hole in the ozone layer and make ocean
acidification even worse.

But he thought climate geo-engineering should be investigated, because it
might be the only escape route.

Background Briefing sought an interview with Professor Crutzen, but he
declined, telling us he'd said his piece.

Here's a reading from his editorial:

Reader: Building trust between scientists and the general public would be
needed to make such a large-scale climate modification acceptable. Finally,
I repeat: the very best would be if emissions of the greenhouse gases could
be reduced so much that the stratospheric sulphur release experiment would
not need to take place. Currently, this looks like a pious wish.

Wendy Carlisle: Support for Professor Crutzen's provocative editorial was
by no means unanimous, and like Wally Broecker's experience 20 years
before, he encountered substantial opposition. But this time the science
heavyweights swung in behind him.

The President of America's peak science institution, the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, Ralph Cicerone, wrote in
defence of his stance:

Reader: I am aware that various individuals have opposed the publication of
Crutzen's paper, even after peer review and revisions, for various and
sincere reasons that are not wholly scientific. Here I write in support of
his call for research on geo-engineering.

Wendy Carlisle: And that, it seems, was all it took to liberate the discussion.

In November last year, an off-the-record gathering of North America's top
scientists and economists met at Harvard University for two days to discuss
climate engineering.

The meeting was organised by Professor David Keith whom you heard earlier
in the program.

David Keith is the research Chair in Energy and the Environment at the
University of Calgary in Canada, which is where he was when Background
Briefing put in a call to him.

David Keith: That was an amazing fact about this meeting. So in some ways I
found that meeting personally intimidating, because I was coming back to
Harvard and co-organising this meeting in front of all the most famous
crowd in the world. I mean it really was the 'brain trust', a bunch of the
atmospheric science community as well as some of the public policy
community, like the former Head of the World Bank the president of Harvard.
So a really impressive crowd of people. And at the end of the meeting there
was really an extraordinary level of agreement, not every person, but an
amazing consistent level of agreement in the room, that we have to take
this seriously. And you might think that I would feel this was a huge
personal vindication after all I published an early paper in the early '90s
arguing that we should take geo-engineering seriously. Not that we should
do it, but we should take it seriously. So you might imagine that my
reaction at the end of having this meeting of these famous people at
Harvard, that people finally agreed, Yes, we should take it seriously, that
I would feel some huge triumph. But it was the opposite. What I felt was
fear.

Wendy Carlisle: What really shocked Professor Keith was to hear the urgency
with which some of his fellow scientists were now viewing this.

David Keith: Also another stunning thing at that meeting was that there
were several people who talking of doing it quite soon, so my line has
always been, 'we should do some research about this now and think about the
politics and ethics, because one day we're going to face it, 30 or 50 years
from now.' But several credible people in the room were saying, 'well hold
on, if the Arctic ice really keeps melting as fast as in the last few
years, and we have some geo-engineering method that really seems like it
might work, albeit with some side effects, why wouldn't you begin to do a
little bit of geo-engineering even ten or twenty years from now to begin to
take the edge off the rate of warming.'

Wendy Carlisle: And that surprised you, and frightened you?

David Keith: It surprised me a lot. And my instant reaction is that I
disagreed with that. But then when you try and think logically about why
exactly you wouldn't do it it's not so clear.

Wendy Carlisle: Sitting in that Harvard University seminar room, was
Professor Scott Barrett, the Director of the International Policy Program
at Johns Hopkins University in Washington. And as he listened to the
presentations, he imagined a ghastly 'perfect storm' brewing, where
political inaction collides with a worsening climate change forecast.

Scott Barrett: So there's almost a kind of a collision here between the
world failing to address the problem in any kind of fundamental way on the
one hand, and on the other hand the problem itself being perhaps even more
concerning than was thought previously. And if this continues and we
continue not to address the problem in this fundamental way, and the
science of climate change reveals itself to be even more worrisome, with
every passing year, then eventually we're going to get to the point where
people are going to consider using a technology like this, whether we
discuss it or not. So there was a sense of really necessity and that's
really what I think was on a lot of people's minds at that meeting.

Wendy Carlisle: So when you went into this meeting at Harvard late last
year, I suppose were you one of those people who thought this was really
crazy science, and did you come out of that meeting thinking it still was
crazy science?

Scott Barrett: No, I should say that the first time I heard of it, I
thought it was crazy science; it sounded more like science fiction. It was
something that we certainly didn't need to take very seriously; at the time
I first heard about it about 1990 or so, and the idea of tampering with the
global climate it is the stuff of movies, it's not the sort of thing that
most scientists would think about. Scientists tend to be very conservative
in their thinking, and also on the policy side, people like me were
thinking very much about how to address the problem fundamentally. So I
never went into this with great enthusiasm, and I deliberately neglected
the topic actually until 2006, and I think that's true for a lot of people;
I think a lot of scientists had known about it for quite a long time, but
they have been working to help the world understand this challenge, and in
the case of some scientists working to promote activities that will address
the problem in a fundamental way. I think virtually everyone in that room
really was there because of the realisation that all this effort really so
far has not borne fruit.

Wendy Carlisle: The Harvard meeting was not the first top level scientific
gathering convened in the wake of Professor Paul Crutzen's editorial. A
previous meeting at NASA in California, brought together another gathering
of scientists. Amongst the invitees was Professor Jim Fleming, a historian
of weather and climate control.

Jim Fleming: I was invited as a historian working in the field and writing
about this, and we went to the NASA Aimes campus, which is at the south end
of San Francisco Bay, and it was a gated, it was relatively secure base, in
which they do some classified experiments. And so we had to come in and
show our identifications, and I remember the press was waiting there,
wondering if they could get in, and it was a behind-the-scenes kind of
meeting.

Wendy Carlisle: Professor Fleming told the scientists that efforts to
control the weather were not new.

Jim Fleming: And that others had said it was OK to think about climate
engineering. One of the most prominent others was John Fitzgerald Kennedy
in 1962, who had called on the Soviets and the Americans, in fact all
nations of the world, to work together on peaceful uses of outer space and
peaceful ways that they could co-operate in weather programs, including
climate studies, and as he put it, 'large-scale weather control'. And so I
said this field has a very long history. It's not always the most dignified
history, it's really quite a, what I call 'chequered history'. But it does
go back in the US case at least, to the 1830s.

Wendy Carlisle: Jim Fleming had never met any of the people who attended.
But one person he did know by reputation was Dr Lowell Wood, a charismatic
and controversial figure.

Jim Fleming: The others were unknown to me before that time, but people
like Lowell Wood, who was a very prominent defence intellectual, protégé of
Edward Teller, (Teller was the father of the H-bomb) and Wood was very much
engaged in SDI kind of Star Wars defence projects here in the United
States, and was now advocating putting up sunscreens to shade the planet in
case the CO2 warming gets out of hand. And Wood's a cultural icon, formerly
with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories and you would imagine if
there is going to be a global thermostat, some people are assuming it might
be built there, the temperature of the world might be adjusted there. It's
a very centrally controlled kind of vision. He talked, in his presentation,
about futuristic hardware, sort of stratospheric gigantic military balloons
on which you could hang hoses to pump sulphates into the stratosphere. He
is very sure of himself, he was very clear to the meteorologists who were
in the group, that their expertise wasn't really relevant to this topic, it
was, in his terms, all physics, he says, 'I understand the radiation
budget, and I know how to attenuate these sunbeams.' And also I got an
impression of him as a very self-assured but in a sense likeable fellow who
was an icon of that era of SDI.

Wendy Carlisle: About a year ago, Rolling Stone magazine ran a feature
profile on Dr Lowell Wood, who they called Dr Evil. The story was about his
ideas on engineering the climate, and the story was called 'Can Dr Evil
Save the World?' Here's a reading.

Reader: In scientific circles, Wood is a dark star. As a physicist at
Lawrence Livermore National Lab in California for more than four decades,
Wood has long been one of the Pentagon's top weaponeers, the agency's go-to
guru for threat assessment and weapons development. Wood is infamous for
championing fringe science, from X-ray lasers to cold-fusion nuclear
reactors, as well as for his long affiliation with the Hoover Institution,
a right-wing think-tank on the Stanford campus. Everyone knew Wood's
reputation. To some, he was a brilliant outside-the-box thinker; to others,
he was the embodiment of 'big science' gone awry.

Wendy Carlisle: Background Briefing requested an interview with Dr Wood,
but he declined, with the following correspondence:

Reader: I've taken a 'vow of silence' after the Rolling Stone 'adventure'.
("Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me twice, shame on me!")

Wendy Carlisle: In another email, Background Briefing told Dr Wood that we
wanted to address some of the claims floating around that the Pentagon
might be interested in funding research into climate control as a tool of
war, and we asked Dr Wood if this was the case.

Here's a reading.

Reader: No, the Pentagon has nothing whatsoever to do with this research,
to the best of my knowledge. Why in the world would they? And no, I've
never taken any money, or any other form of support from the energy/fuels
industry etc., etc. I've also executed no contracts of any kind with the
Devil, nor do I intend to do so ...

Wendy Carlisle: Lowell Wood recommended we speak to his colleague Dr Ken
Caldeira, whom he has worked with in modelling climate engineering options.
Ken Caldeira is the senior scientist at the Carnegie Institute for Science
at Stanford University, and he's just about the only scientist working on
this full time.

Because most of the work on climate engineering is back-of-the-envelope
stuff by scientists dabbling in their spare time. But Caldeira is on a
mission to make it a research priority for the US government.

But it's clear that when you talk to him, he's sickened at the prospect of
the world resorting to climate engineering. But he can see it coming.

Ken Caldeira spoke to Background Briefing on a studio hook-up from California.

Ken Caldeira: Yes, I think that the fact that these ideas largely came out
of the weaponeers and the nuclear weapons experts, gave this sort of a
dirty or immoral kind of feel to it that it was something that was the
domain of people who were ready to incinerate cities, and not the sort of
thing that people who are worried about polar bears and ice sheets should
really entertain. And so I think it was seen as the idea of sort of crazy
weaponeers and not the domain of sober scientists.

Wendy Carlisle: The 'crazy weaponeers' that Dr Caldeira is referring to
include not only Dr Lowell Wood, but Edward Teller, the father of the
H-bomb. Edward Teller believed that technology would save humans from
themselves. It was this kind of thinking that drove him to work on the
H-bomb, and ultimately on engineering the climate.

Edward Teller.

Edward Teller: I myself was interested in theoretical physics in explaining
atoms molecular vibrations, knowledge and more knowledge. I didn't want to
do it, but then Hitler not only swallowed up half of Poland, he invaded the
west, and two days later there was an invitation to a pan-American congress
that Roosevelt, whom I have never seen before, was going to speak. And he
made a remarkable speech, how the world is really endangered by Hitler
among other things, and at the climax, he said 'You scientists are blamed
for the weapons to be used, but I tell you that if you now won't work on
weapons, the freedom of the world will be lost.'

Ken Caldeira: Yes, Edward Teller was optimistic about technology and
pessimistic about human nature. For example, after the atomic bomb was used
in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, he thought, 'well humans will never, through
their nature, avoid using these weapons again.' And so what we need to do
is to create a technology that would make these weapons unusable. And so
his idea was to make the super bomb, which was later called the hydrogen
bomb. And the idea was that this was a weapon so terrible that nobody could
imagine a war like this and so nobody would use a regular atomic bombs. And
by the early 1980s, the idea of a first strike nuclear war between Russia
and the United States became thinkable, so then he said, 'Oh well, we'd
better make this Star Wars missile defence system, that we can't trust
treaties to prevent nuclear war, but we can create a technology that will
shield us from incoming ballistic missiles. And so they talked to Ronald
Reagan and got funding for the Star Wars missile defence program.

Wendy Carlisle: It was after the Star Wars adventure that Edward Teller and
Lowell Wood turned their attention to global warming.

Ken Caldeira: And again he thought, Well we can't rely on fallible humans
to reduce their carbondioxide emissions because humans are basically a
selfish, corrupt organism, and will never co-operate on a global scale to
achieve anything. But we could do a number of things to counteract the
climate effects of greenhouse gases, and so one of his colleagues, James
Early suggested that we could put satellites in space between earth and the
sun, maybe a million miles out in space, that would deflect sunlight away
from the earth. They also looked at designer particles that instead of just
blocking the bulk of solar radiation the way sulphur might do, could just
deflect the ultraviolet radiation, or primarily ultraviolet radiation, and
since ultraviolet radiation causes skin cancer and damages crops, they were
saying, 'well not only are we going to solve the climate problem, but we're
going to improve crop yields and we're going to reduce skin cancer, and so
it would be immoral not to do this kind of engineering of the planet.' And
so this is really the most extreme view, saying that we're not just
engineering the planet to alleviate some of the negative effects or
actions, but we could engineer the planet to make it a better place to live.

Wendy Carlisle: Dr Ken Caldeira.

But Professor Jim Fleming says the military has historically been
interested in exploiting technological advances in weather control.

Jim Fleming: The US military has always been interested in controlling the
weather, so it's not simply the modern pentagon. And even one strategic Air
Command General was quoted as saying in the 1950s 'If you control the
weather, you can control the world.' I think this interest has continued.

Wendy Carlisle: Yes, well I wonder if you could talk more about that,
because you do see a real resonance between the weaponeers and the climate
engineers, don't you?

Jim Fleming: Well I think the technology is potentially so powerful that
once people begin to think that they can master it, the military has
resources that private scientific labs or university scale laboratories
simply don't have. And so once an enthusiastic person, for example, one of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or the Secretary of Defence, begins to be
convinced about this, they can throw vast resources at it. Some of it can
be justified. During the Cold War there was an attempt to make it rain on
demand. It was thought that we could have such precise forecasts using
computers, that we could deploy field troops out ahead of the storms to
sort of divert them to possibly calm the waters when a hurricane is coming
onshore. And then in the Vietnam era, the Pentagon was secretly seeding the
clouds over the Ho Chi Minh trail, trying to make it rain and make mud on
the trail to reduce the trafficability.

Wendy Carlisle: It's Jim Fleming's view that climate engineering could be
used as a weapon.

Jim Fleming: I think it could, if push came to shove. I have discovered
there is just a tip of the iceberg showing on defence intellectuals
interested in this. Because they're saying climate change is a national
security issue, it's not simply cast in vague, apocalyptic terms, it's
actually threats to their war fighting capability to national security. And
when you see this tip, you must assume that there's more going on that's
not being reported.

Wendy Carlisle: And that present-day military hardware, guns and artillery,
could be retrofitted and used to launch weather-changing particles into the
stratosphere.

Jim Fleming: Well there's comments like the original 1992 National Academy
study, had concluded that it was simpler to shoot sulphates into the
stratosphere using naval guns, than it would be to sequester or reduce
carbondioxide in our environment. And when I mentioned this to one of the
participants, he had been one of the chairs at that National Academy study
and a former Navy official. He said, 'Sure, we've got the Navy guns, we
still have them in mothballs; all we need to do is put liners in them, and
we can be shooting sulphates very soon.' These are huge Naval guns that
would lob basically in the military sense, they would be declaring war on
the stratosphere by shooting sulphates up there to make it more reflective.

Wendy Carlisle: During his time at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Ken
Caldeira says he's been in a meeting to discuss the idea of manipulating
the weather for war. But he doesn't think it's a realistic option.

Ken Caldeira: I used to work at Lawrence Livermore National Lab., which is
basically the lab that created the hydrogen bomb. And one of the strange
things that occurs when you work in such a place is you find yourself in
odd meetings. And one meeting was this question of are there ways to use
the weather or geophysical systems as a weapon. And it turns out that it's
much easier just to drop a bomb on people, or do something much more direct
than toy with the weather and try to get them through some weather
manipulation. And so I really don't think that weather manipulation as a
military weapon is a realistic concern. I do think that climate engineering
could provoke wars and result in military actions.

Wendy Carlisle: And that's the heart of the problem. It's not that climate
engineering could become a weapon of war, but it could be the reason for
wars to begin.

For instance, what might happen if Russia or China or Canada decided that a
few degrees of extra warmth was good, but Australia found this same
temperature rise caused water shortages and crop failure? Whose priorities
would prevail then?

Professor Scott Barrett.

Scott Barrett: The difficulty I think here is that as one country acts,
other countries will be affected. Now they may be affected positively, but
there's also the possibility that they would be affected negatively. And
you really have the prospect here with this technology, of individual
countries essentially having their fingers on the global thermostat. And
that's why there's this question 'who decides?' It's not the same question
we've been grappling with, about how much to reduce and which countries
should cut back, by how much, when. This is much more what should the
temperature be? And different countries of course will be affected by
climate change in different kinds of ways, and they may have very different
views about this. The technology also has the potential of allowing
manipulation of the climate in different directions, so you actually can
even entertain the scenario that one country may want to use
geo-engineering to offset warming, to cool the planet somewhat, against
this background of warming. And other countries might want to do the
opposite. And so there will be the prospect, the potential for conflict,
because of this new technology and the collision really with this
environmental challenge, and our inability so far to address it
fundamentally.

Wendy Carlisle: It's these issues that are now occupying minds at the
Washington think tank, the Council on Foreign Relations. Next month,
they've convened a meeting to discuss what they've termed a most unusual
topic: unilateral planetary scale geo-engineering.

Those on the council think it's time that the policy community started
seriously thinking about what might happen if climate engineering was
deployed.

Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, Professor David Victor.

David Victor: The meeting that we're calling is particularly focused on how
to manage the risk that countries will go off and unilaterally start
engineering the climate. And that's the really difficult aspect of this
question, because if a country decides that it very strongly, in its own
merits, wants to do something about this, it'll find that isn't that
expensive, and there isn't a lot of law or expectations to guide its
behaviour right now.

Wendy Carlisle: In fact, David Victor says climate engineering effectively
means that the geopolitics of climate change are turned upside down.

David Victor: When you're trying to control emissions, the only way to be
effective is to get almost all the world's emitters together and get them
to agree to undertake measures that could be expensive, to control their
emissions. And every country has a strong incentive to defect, to free ride
on the efforts of other countries. And this is what makes the climate
change problem politically such a difficult issue to deal with at an
international level. Geo-engineering is exactly the opposite. One country,
or a few countries could get together and decide on their own to go out and
intervene in the atmosphere to offset some of the effects of climate
change, and maybe to intervene in ways that are beneficial to themselves,
so high latitude countries that are worried about the loss of their ice
cover might intervene to block some of the sunlight and help their ice
recover, and that could be beneficial for them but it could be harmful to
other nations on earth. And so it's this complete turning upside down of
the politics that I think will come to be the big political issue in the
geo-engineering debate.

Wendy Carlisle: In late last year, 30 of America's leading scientists and
thinkers, including some of the people you've heard on this program,
Professor Scott Barrett, Wally Broecker, David Keith, Tom Schelling and
Paul Crutzen, wrote an open letter to US Presidential candidates. They
urged them to fund a $30-billion clean energy research project, with the
vigour of the moon mission, as conceived by President John F. Kennedy in
1961.

John F. Kennedy: We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon
in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but
because they are hard, because that challenge is one that we're willing to
accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win.

APPLAUSE

Wendy Carlisle: The scientists who signed the letter said they believed
that private investment and the market alone was insufficient to drive the
research needed in the limited time available. They said it needed to be
funded by government.

Back in 1961, President Kennedy recognised that to put a man on the moon
would need vision, commitment, leadership and money. What these scientists
want is another Apollo effort.

John F. Kennedy: But if I were to say, my fellow citizens, that we shall
send to the moon, 240,000 miles away from the control station in Houston, a
giant rocket more than 300 feet tall, the length of this football field,
made of new metal alloys, some of which have not yet been invented, capable
of standing heat and stresses several times more than have ever been
experienced, fitted together with a precision better than the finest watch,
carrying all the equipment needed for propulsion, guidance, control,
communications, food and survival, on an untried mission, to an unknown
celestial body, and then return it safely to earthy, re-entering the
atmosphere at speeds of over 25,000 miles per hour, causing heat about half
that of the temperature of the sun - almost as hot as it is here today -
and do all this, and do it right, and do it first, before this decade is
out, then we must be bold.

APPLAUSE/MUSIC

John F. Kennedy: I'm the one who's doing all the work, so we just want you
to stay cool for a minute.

SONG: 'Blue Moon'.

Scott Barrett: Yes, President Kennedy was an extraordinary President,
because he showed real leadership. He made the country think about itself
and its role in the world in a different way.

Wendy Carlisle: One of the other things I found extraordinary about
President Kennedy's speech was he talks about this grand idea of putting a
man on the moon, and he doesn't know how it's going to be done. In fact he
says in his speech that all this 'money will be thrown at it and we will
invent alloys that we don't know about yet. We will invent energy systems
we don't know about yet.' So there was no kind of the known knowns there,
he was talking about the known unknowns.

Scott Barrett: Yes, that's exactly why we need basic research, that's
exactly right. And when you contemplate the magnitude of this challenge,
the idea that you're going to do it with just things that are on the shelf
and so on, I mean to some extent, yes, we can take action using those
existing technologies, but to really address it fundamentally we're going
to need to have this incredible transformation and what you just said
really explains why the science is needed and why basic research is needed,
because we'll need to uncover things that we haven't contemplated, and
that's what basic science and research does.

Wendy Carlisle: Professor Scott Barrett.

In 2005, the economist, Professor Tom Schelling received the Nobel Prize
for his work on game theory. It's a branch of economics which describes how
rational actors behave in a given set of circumstances. It's all about
strategic behaviour.

Professor Schelling was the brains behind the thinking on nuclear
deterrence during the Cold War.

In the 1980s he got involved with the global warming debate during the
Carter Administration, and he's still involved. He doesn't think global
attempts to reduce emissions through treaties or trading will work. He
thinks the developed world should show it's serious about climate change,
by massively investing in new technology, just like the moon mission. But
if that doesn't work, he thinks climate engineering could prove
irresistible.

Tom Schelling: If geo-engineering should work, and we don't know whether it
will, we don't know what the side effects might be, but it really
transforms the problem from one of regulating the behaviour of 7 or 8
billion people in the way they cook their food and transport themselves,
and warm and cool themselves, and all of that, instead of having to change
lifestyles and behaviour of billions of people, it simply turns off the
global warming, and that's bound to be very tempting.

And I think what is going to be needed is for some small scale reversible
experiments, to find out just how well some of the ideas work, and what
some of the side effect may be that we have to worry about.

Wendy Carlisle: And would you be able to gauge for me what you think is
amongst the mainstream climate scientist community, what they're attitude
is towards this now? Do they now believe, do you think, that this needs to
be talked about? They've stopped self-censoring themselves, in other words?

Tom Schelling: I don't think we're there yet, but I think we're going to be
there in a few more years. I think the argument in favour of at least
testing some of the ideas about geo-engineering on a small scale, without
any long-term commitment yet, until we've discovered how it works and
whether it works, and whether there are serious disadvantages, I think
gradually this is going to become a subject that eventually be on the
editorial pages of newspapers in Australia or the USA or the UK, or Germany
and such places.

Wendy Carlisle: Professor Schelling believes climate engineering is going
to be a much more attractive option to wealthy nations than trying to
reduce their emissions. And that's the problem, it's cheap and unilateral.
Nations, he says, will act in their own self interest. And he says under
this scenario, conflict is inevitable.

Tom Schelling: Ordinarily we'd think that the problem is going to be get
all the nations together to co-operate at substantial sacrifice. On the
other hand, if geo-engineering turns out to be as effective and as cheap as
some people think it will be, then the question is, 'how many nations will
there be any one of which could afford to undertake its own
geo-engineering, leaving all the other nations to enjoy or suffer the
consequences.' So that if it turns out that the Chinese decide they can
afford to engage in geo-engineering and other nations don't like it, how do
we arrive at a compromise? I think that's likely to be a matter of real
dispute, especially if some people think that we want to reduce global
atmospheric change in temperature by 1-degree Celsius, and others think we
ought to do it by 4-degrees Celsius, there's a lot of room for dispute
there, and I think we ought to recognise that geo-engineering may prove to
be a too attractive solution to the problem. Too attractive to some nations
that foresee that they themselves are going to suffer very seriously, while
other nations would rather not take the risk.

Wendy Carlisle: So how does the world go about governing who should set the
global thermostat? I mean how do we do that?

Tom Schelling: I don't think you can prevent the conflict, I think you have
to recognise with respect to geo-engineering, there is almost certain to be
a conflict over exactly what to do and how much to do and who should pay
for it. I think reaching agreement on how much geo-engineering to engage in
especially if it turns out that there are risks that we haven't yet
identified with geo-engineering, it might appear more dangerous to some
countries than others.

Wendy Carlisle: The idea of controlling the climate through direct
intervention has been around for a long time. But it's true to say it's
come a long way in a very short time, out of the realm of science fiction
and into the science lab.

But the great dilemmas are no closer to being solved. How do you prevent
climate engineering from happening once countries discover it could be
do-able and cheap? And even then, no-one can be sure that the climate
engineering option won't cause an environmental disaster.

As Professor David Keith stood in front of a spellbound audience of
scientists at Harvard University, he laid out what has become a truly awful
set of possibilities, that the more we engage in climate engineering, the
more we walk away from our existing climate.

David Keith: So, here's one way to think about it, which is that we just do
this instead of cutting emissions because it's cheaper. I guess the thing I
haven't said about this is that it is absurdly cheap, it's conceivable that
say using the sulphates method, or this method I've come up with, you could
create an ice age at a cost of .001% of GDP. It's very cheap, we have a lot
of leverage. It's not a good idea, but it's just important. I'll tell you
how big the lever is, the lever is that big. And that calculation isn't in
much dispute. You might argue about the sanity of it, but the leverage is
real. But here's a case which is harder to reject.

Let's say that we don't do geo-engineering, we do what we ought to do,
which is get serious about cutting emissions. But we don't really know how
quickly we have to cut them. There's a lot of uncertainty about exactly how
much climate change is too much.

So let's say that we work hard and we actually don't just tap the brakes,
but we step hard on the brakes and really reduce emissions and then
actually reduce concentrations, and maybe someday, like 2075, October 23rd,
we finally reach that glorious day where concentrations have peaked and are
rolling down the other side, and we have global celebrations and we've
actually started to - we've seen the worst of it.

But maybe on that day we also find that the Greenland ice sheet is really
melting unacceptably fast, fast enough to put meters of sea level on the
oceans in the next 100 years, and remove some of the biggest cities from
the map. That's an absolutely possible scenario. We might decide at that
point that even though geo-engineering was uncertain and morally unhappy,
that it's a lot better than not geo-engineering, and that's a very
different way to look at the problem. It's using this as risk control not
instead of action. It's saying that you do some geo-engineering for a
little while, to take the worst of the heat off, not use it as a substitute
for action.

But there is a problem with that view, and the problem is the following:

Knowledge that geo-engineering is possible makes the climate impacts look
less fearsome, and that makes a weaker commitment to cutting emissions
today. This is what economists call a moral hazard. And that's one of the
fundamental reasons that this problem is so hard to talk about; in general,
I think it's the underlying reason that it's been politically unacceptable
to talk about this, but you don't make good policy by hiding things in a
drawer.

Wendy Carlisle: Background Briefing's Executive Producer is Chris Bullock.
Co-ordinating Producer, Linda McGinness. Research, Anna Whitfeld, and
technical production this week, Mark Don. I'm Wendy Carlisle and you're
listening to Background Briefing on ABC Radio National.

MUSIC: 'Try a little tenderness'

Further Information

'A surprising idea for 'solving' climate change' - A talk by David Keith
delivered in November 2007
Publications

Title: 'Can Dr Evil Save the World?' Rolling Stone, Nov 3, 2006
Author: Jeff Goodell
URL:
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/12343892/can_dr_evil_save_the_world/1

Title: 'The Climate Engineers' in Wilson Quarterly Spring 2006
Author: James R Fleming
URL: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=wq.essay&essay_id=231274
Presenter

Wendy Carlisle

From Philip Sutton - Greenleap (Australia)

Dear Greenleapers,
   When you read this article keep in mind that it is still possible
technically/physically to save  the world from a climate catastrophe if we
decided to go into emergency mode and quickly  make the changes to our
physical economy that are needed.  The existential crisis of  confidence
that we face right now is to do with whether societies will or will not
take adequate  action.  When people say "it's too late" they are assuming
that societies will not take effective  action.
   But we don't have to be like rabbits frozen in the hunters' spotlight!
   If we go into emergency mode we can avoid the worst of the physical
climate catastrophe.
   Cheers, Philip
   ----------------------------

I am concerned that many in these discussion groups are only too happy to
be 'armchair critics' (and heaven's knows we need continual critique -
although the endless fascination with the death throes of the capitalist
system as we know it - seems to take an inordinate amount of energy in most
groups - but I note a troubling lack of on-the-ground action - or even
suggestions of actions that we  might take - which is why - as Philip says
- we are like deer or 'roos in the headlights.

The real issues is HOW to get government to listen (and they can be very
good at sealing-off access to themselves) - how the informed citizen can
get their hands on the levers of power - how do you activate the media (as
the internet has so fractionated the audience, that it is v ery difficult
to get general messages out to everyone - but people do still read papers
and listen to radio, and watch TV.

what does 'emergency mode mean'?? - does it mean draconian restrictions
(which are often very badly thought through) on everything - such could
also mean elimination of internet (as it is energy hungry) - maybe if we
could stick with dialup - which is vastly less energy hungry, we could
continue to operate). Rationing? Closing the borders??? Rumours circulate
about a possible fascist style overthrow of the USA - we can only hope they
are exactly that. But  emergencies cause some strange reactions, and
political opportunists abound.

We should be trying to come up with a do-able "shopping list of
technologies (and social programs) that need promoting (other than the
obvious energy sources) - what pharmaceuticals, what industrial and
domestic chemicals, what building and insulating materials, fuels,
containers - programs for re-use of containers (a major, if almost
invisible, energy cost), electronic technologies, fabrication, textiles etc
etc etc

Oh - and don't forget the natural environment!!

AND the slow population wind-down (we have to get in first on that one - or
nature will do it for us...)

Boring... boring ... but essential...

Hugh Spencer









http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/09/poznan-copenhagen-global-warmi
ng-targets-climate-change

   Too late? Why scientists say we should expect the worst

David Adam

The Guardian,  Tuesday 9 December 2008

   As ministers and officials gather in Poznan one year ahead of the
Copenhagen summit on  global warming, the second part of a major series
looks at the crucial issue of targets

   At a high-level academic conference on global warming at Exeter
University this summer,  climate scientist Kevin Anderson stood before his
expert audience and contemplated a  strange feeling. He wanted to be wrong.
Many of those in the room who knew what he was  about to say felt the same.
His conclusions had already caused a stir in scientific and political
circles. Even committed green campaigners said the implications left them
terrified.

   Anderson, an expert at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at
Manchester  University, was about to send the gloomiest dispatch yet from
the frontline of the war against  climate change.

   Despite the political rhetoric, the scientific warnings, the media
headlines and the corporate  promises, he would say, carbon emissions were
soaring way out of control - far above even  the bleak scenarios considered
by last year's report from the Intergovernmental Panel on  Climate Change
(IPCC) and the Stern review. The battle against dangerous climate change
had been lost, and the world needed to prepare for things to get very, very
bad.

   "As an academic I wanted to be told that it was a very good piece of work
and that the  conclusions were sound," Anderson said. "But as a human being
I desperately wanted  someone to point out a mistake, and to tell me we had
got it completely wrong."

   Nobody did. The cream of the UK climate science community sat in stunned
silence as  Anderson pointed out that carbon emissions since 2000 have
risen much faster than anyone  thought possible, driven mainly by the
coal-fuelled economic boom in the developing world.  So much extra
pollution is being pumped out, he said, that most of the climate targets
debated by politicians and campaigners are fanciful at best, and
"dangerously misguided" at  worst.

   In the jargon used to count the steady accumulation of carbon dioxide in
the Earth's thin layer  of atmosphere, he said it was "improbable" that
levels could now be restricted to 650 parts  per million (ppm).

   The CO2 level is currently over 380ppm, up from 280ppm at the time of the
industrial  revolution, and it rises by more than 2ppm each year. The
government's official position is  that the world should aim to cap this
rise at 450ppm.

   The science is fuzzy, but experts say that could offer an even-money
chance of limiting the  eventual temperature rise above pre-industrial
times to 2C, which the EU defines as  dangerous. (We have had 0.7C of that
already and an estimated extra 0.5C is guaranteed  because of emissions to
date.)

   The graphs on the large screens behind Anderson's head at Exeter told a
different story. Line  after line, representing the fumes that belch from
chimneys, exhausts and jet engines, that  should have bent in a rapid curve
towards the ground, were heading for the ceiling instead.

   At 650ppm, the same fuzzy science says the world would face a
catastrophic 4C average  rise. And even that bleak future, Anderson said,
could only be achieved if rich countries  adopted "draconian emission
reductions within a decade". Only an unprecedented "planned  economic
recession" might be enough. The current financial woes would not come close.

  Lost cause

   Anderson is not the only expert to voice concerns that current targets
are hopelessly  optimistic. Many scientists, politicians and campaigners
privately admit that 2C is a lost  cause. Ask for projections around the
dinner table after a few bottles of wine and more vote  for 650ppm than
450ppm as the more likely outcome.

   Bob Watson, chief scientist at the Environment Department and a former
head of the IPCC,  warned this year that the world needed to prepare for a
4C rise, which would wipe out  hundreds of species, bring extreme food and
water shortages in vulnerable countries and  cause floods that would
displace hundreds of millions of people. Warming would be much  more severe
towards the poles, which could accelerate melting of the Greenland and West
Antarctic ice sheets.

   Watson said: "We must alert everybody that at the moment we're at the
very top end of the  worst case [emissions] scenario. I think we should be
striving for 450 [ppm] but I think we  should be prepared that 550 [ppm] is
a more likely outcome." Hitting the 450ppm target, he  said, would be
"unbelievably difficult".

   A report for the Australian government this autumn suggested that the
450ppm goal is so  ambitious that it could wreck attempts to agree a new
global deal on global warming at  Copenhagen next year. The report, from
economist Ross Garnaut and dubbed the Australian  Stern review, says
nations must accept that a greater amount of warming is inevitable, or risk
a failure to agree that "would haunt humanity until the end of time".

   It says developed nations including Britain, the US and Australia, would
have to slash carbon  dioxide emissions by 5% each year over the next
decade to hit the 450ppm target. Britain's  Climate Change Act 2008, the
most ambitious legislation of its kind in the world, calls for  reductions
of about 3% each year to 2050.

   Garnaut, a professorial fellow in economics at Melbourne University,
said: "Achieving the  objective of 450ppm would require tighter constraints
on emissions than now seem likely in  the period to 2020 ... The only
alternative would be to impose even tighter constraints on  developing
countries from 2013, and that does not appear to be realistic at this
time."

   The report adds: "The awful arithmetic means that exclusively focusing on
a 450ppm  outcome, at this moment, could end up providing another reason
for not reaching an  international agreement to reduce emissions. In the
meantime, the cost of excessive focus  on an unlikely goal could consign to
history any opportunity to lock in an agreement for  stabilising at 550ppm
- a more modest, but still difficult, international outcome. An effective
agreement around 550ppm would be vastly superior to continuation of
business as usual."

   Henry Derwent, former head of the UK's international climate negotiating
team and now  president of the International Emissions Trading Association,
said a new climate treaty was  unlikely to include a stabilisation goal -
either 450ppm or 550ppm.

   "You've got to avoid talking and thinking in those terms because
otherwise the politics  reaches a dead end," he said. Many small island
states are predicted to be swamped by  rising seas with global warming
triggered by carbon levels as low as 400ppm. "It's really  difficult for
countries to sign up to something that loses them half their territory.
It's not going  to work."

(HS comment) And this I just DON'T understand - the logic of such a
response utterly escapes me. So, if they don't sign up - then they'll lose
even more of their territory...so sign me up Scotty!...

   A new agreement in Copenhagen should concentrate instead on shorter term
targets, such  as firm emission reductions by 2020, he said.

Worst time

   The escalating scale of human emissions could not have come at a worst
time, as scientists  have discovered that the Earth's forests and oceans
could be losing their ability to soak up  carbon pollution. Most climate
projections assume that about half of all carbon emissions are  reabsorbed
in these natural sinks.

   Computer models predict that this effect will weaken as the world warms,
and a string of  recent studies suggests this is happening already.

   The Southern Ocean's ability to absorb carbon dioxide has weakened by
about 15% a  decade since 1981, while in the North Atlantic, scientists at
the University of East Anglia also  found a dramatic decline in the CO2
sink between the mid-1990s and mid-2000s.

   A separate study published this year showed the ability of forests to
soak up anthropogenic  carbon dioxide - that caused by human activity - was
weakening, because the changing  length of the seasons alters the time when
trees switch from being a sink of carbon to a  source.

   Soils could also be giving up their carbon stores: evidence emerged in
2005 that a vast  expanse of western Siberia was undergoing an
unprecedented thaw.

   The region, the largest frozen peat bog in the world, had begun to melt
for the first time since  it formed 11,000 years ago. Scientists believe
the bog could begin to release billions of  tonnes of methane locked up in
the soils, a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than  carbon dioxide. The
World Meteorological Organisation recently reported the largest annual
rise of methane levels in the atmosphere for a decade.

   Some experts argue that the grave nature of recent studies, combined with
the unexpected  boom in carbon emissions, demands an urgent reassessment of
the situation. In an article  published this month in the journal Climatic
Change, Peter Sheehan, an economist at Victoria  University, Australia,
says the scale of recent emissions means the carbon cuts suggested by  the
IPCC to stabilise levels in the atmosphere "cannot be taken as a reliable
guide for immediate policy determination". The cuts, he says, will need to
be bigger and in more  places.

   Earlier this year, Jim Hansen, senior climate scientist with Nasa,
published a paper that said  the world's carbon targets needed to be
urgently revised because of the risk of feedbacks in  the climate system.
He used reconstructions of the Earth's past climate to show that a target
of 350ppm, significantly below where we are today, is needed to "preserve a
planet similar to  that on which civilisation developed and to which life
on Earth is adapted". Hansen has  suggested a joint review by Britain's
Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences  of all research
findings since the IPCC report.

   Rajendra Pachauri, who chairs the IPCC, argues that suggestions the IPCC
report is out of  date is "not a valid position at all".

   He said: "What the IPCC produces is not based on two years of literature,
but 30 or 40 years  of literature. We're not dealing with short-term
weather changes, we're talking about major changes in our climate system. I
refuse to accept that a few papers are in any way going to  influence the
long-term projections the IPCC has come up with."

   At Defra, Watson said: "Even without the new information, there was
enough to make most  policy makers think that urgent action was absolutely
essential. The new information only  strengthens that and pushes it even
harder. It was already very urgent to start with. It's now  become very,
very urgent."

Benny replied via Facebook, his email address at hotmail has been
hacked. I have his new email address so if anyone needs to contact him
drop me a line. I am about to ban his old email address and
resubscribe his new.
I'm glad it was a scam.
Peace Benny!
:-)

--- In ClimateChangeAction@..., "Peter Bright"
<hobart_elf@...> wrote:
>
> My impression at the moment is that a female has obtained access
> (authorised or unauthorised) to Benny's laptop and has used it to try
> and obtain money for herself by false pretences.
>
>
> --- In ClimateChangeAction@..., "Anne"
> <cyberactivist@> wrote:
> >
> > below are details of the message sent from the benny zable's email.
> > This gives IP address (i think).
> > Last i heard Benny was in Australia (a few weeks ago).
> > the email addy looks like benny's so i dunno???
> > i can only assume benny's email addy has been hacked by a spam bot.
> > i will contact him direct on Facebook.
> > Cheers
> > Anne
> >
> >
> > From bennyzable@ Fri Jan 02 10:08:37 2009
> > Return-Path: bennyzable@
> > X-Sender: bennyzable@
> > X-Apparently-To: climatechangeaction@...
> > X-Received: (qmail 97177 invoked from network); 2 Jan 2009 18:08:36
> -0000
> > X-Received: from unknown (66.218.67.96)
> > by m53.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Jan 2009 18:08:36 -0000
> > X-Received: from unknown (HELO blu0-omc1-s16.blu0.hotmail.com)
> > (65.55.116.27)
> > by mta17.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Jan 2009 18:08:36 -0000
> > X-Received: from BLU108-W60 ([65.55.116.9]) by
> > blu0-omc1-s16.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
> > Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:08:36 -0800
> > Message-ID: BLU108-W60549FC9566F47DF7B600CC1E20@
> > Return-Path: bennyzable@
> > Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 18:08:35 +0000
> > Importance: Normal
> > MIME-Version: 1.0
> > Bcc:
> > X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jan 2009 18:08:36.0093 (UTC)
> > FILETIME=[217DDAD0:01C96D05]
> > X-Originating-IP: 65.55.116.27
> > X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0:0:0
> > From: benny zable bennyzable@
> > Subject: Please, I Need Your Help Urgently...Reply soon.
> > X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=78778304
> > Content-Type: text/plain
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> >
> > --- In ClimateChangeAction@..., benny zable
> > bennyzable@ wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello Dear,
> > > How are you doing today? I am sorry i didn't inform you about my
> > traveling to Africa for a program called "Empowering Youth to Fight
> > Racism, HIV/AIDS, Poverty and Lack of Education, the program is taking
> > place in three major countries in Africa which is Ghana , South Africa
> > and Nigeria . It as been a very sad and bad moment for me, the present
> > condition that i found myself is very hard for me to explain.
> >   I am really stranded in Nigeria because I forgot my little bag in
> > the Taxi where my money, passport, documents and other valuable things
> > were kept on my way to the Hotel am staying, I am facing a hard time
> > here because i have no money on me. I am now owning a hotel bill of
> > $1050 and they wanted me to pay the bill soon else they will have to
> > seize my bag and hand me over to the Hotel Management, I need this
> > help from you urgently to help me back home, I need you to help me
> > with the hotel bill and i will also need $1250 to feed and help myself
> > back home so please can you help me with a sum of $2300 to sort out my
> > problems here? I need this help so much and on time because i am in a
> > terrible and tight situation here, I don't even have money to feed
> > myself for a day which means i had been starving so please understand
> > how urgent i need your help.i have decided not tell my family so that
> > they will not be worried.when I return I will tell them and they will
> > understand.            I am sending you this e-mail from the city
> > Library and I only have 30 min, I will appreciate what so ever you can
> > afford to send me for now and I promise to pay back your money as soon
> > as i return home so please let me know on time so that i can forward
> > you the details you need to transfer the money through Money Gram or
> > Western Union.Hope to hear from you.
> > > Thank you.
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > It's the same Hotmail®. If by "same" you mean up to 70% faster.
> > >
> >
>
http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_broa\
> d1_122008
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Corporate "environmentalism" is consumer-side environmentalism. "Make
your dollars work for the Earth." "Buy green!" "Purchase this green
gewgaw instead of that ungreen gadget." "Feel guilty about driving your
car."

Consumer-side environmentalism is loath to discuss production.
Consumer-side environmentalism does not challenge the manufacture of
cars. Rather, it assumes that producing more and more cars is a sacred
right never to be questioned.

Production-side environmentalism places blame on the criminal rather
than the victim. It looks at the profits oil companies reap from urban
sprawl rather than demeaning people who have no way to get to work other
than driving a car. Production-side environmentalism looks at an
agro-food industry which profits from transporting highly processed,
over-packaged, nutrient-depleted junk thousands of kilometres rather
than the parent giving in to a child bombarded with Saturday morning
pop-tart-porn TV.
Full article at http://links.org.au/node/843

Subscribe free to /Links - International Journal of Socialist Renewal/ -
at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373

Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 17:16:32 +0000
From: climateemergencynetwork@yahoogroups.com
To: climateemergencynetwork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [climateemergencynetwork] Digest Number 266



         Who Said China wasn't doing anything?

     Posted by:      "Jenny McCracken"
jam2arts

       Mon Dec 29, 2008 5:55 pm        (PST)


             this report just off SupremeMasterTV.com

SAVE OUR PLANET
China launches landmark plug-in hybrid car. On

> Monday, China's automaker BYD began selling the world's first mass-

> produced, plug-in hybrid car. The F3DM, which costs approximately US

> $22,000, can travel up to 100 kilometers solely on electricity and

> then shifts to the gasoline-powered engine. Using a standard

> electric outlet, the battery can be fully recharged in 9 hours, or

> within an hour at BYD charging stations. BYD plans to bring the

> F3DM to the United States by 2010.

>

> Kudos BYD and China for the successful launch of the green F3DM! We

> look forward to seeing many more eco-friendly vehicles such as

> these on the roads worldwide. (*)

>

> http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/12/byd-f3dm-plug-i.html,



_________________________________________________________________
Net yourself a bargain. Find great deals on eBay.
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Frover%2Eebay%2Ecom%2Frover%2F1%2\
F705%2D10129%2D5668%2D323%2F4%3Fid%3D10&_t=763807330&_r=hotmailTAGLINES&_m=EXT

My impression at the moment is that a female has obtained access
(authorised or unauthorised) to Benny's laptop and has used it to try
and obtain money for herself by false pretences.


--- In ClimateChangeAction@..., "Anne"
<cyberactivist@...> wrote:
>
> below are details of the message sent from the benny zable's email.
> This gives IP address (i think).
> Last i heard Benny was in Australia (a few weeks ago).
> the email addy looks like benny's so i dunno???
> i can only assume benny's email addy has been hacked by a spam bot.
> i will contact him direct on Facebook.
> Cheers
> Anne
>
>
> From bennyzable@... Fri Jan 02 10:08:37 2009
> Return-Path: bennyzable@...
> X-Sender: bennyzable@...
> X-Apparently-To: climatechangeaction@...
> X-Received: (qmail 97177 invoked from network); 2 Jan 2009 18:08:36
-0000
> X-Received: from unknown (66.218.67.96)
> by m53.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Jan 2009 18:08:36 -0000
> X-Received: from unknown (HELO blu0-omc1-s16.blu0.hotmail.com)
> (65.55.116.27)
> by mta17.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Jan 2009 18:08:36 -0000
> X-Received: from BLU108-W60 ([65.55.116.9]) by
> blu0-omc1-s16.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
> Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:08:36 -0800
> Message-ID: BLU108-W60549FC9566F47DF7B600CC1E20@...
> Return-Path: bennyzable@...
> Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 18:08:35 +0000
> Importance: Normal
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Bcc:
> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jan 2009 18:08:36.0093 (UTC)
> FILETIME=[217DDAD0:01C96D05]
> X-Originating-IP: 65.55.116.27
> X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0:0:0
> From: benny zable bennyzable@...
> Subject: Please, I Need Your Help Urgently...Reply soon.
> X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=78778304
> Content-Type: text/plain
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> --- In ClimateChangeAction@..., benny zable
> bennyzable@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hello Dear,
> > How are you doing today? I am sorry i didn't inform you about my
> traveling to Africa for a program called "Empowering Youth to Fight
> Racism, HIV/AIDS, Poverty and Lack of Education, the program is taking
> place in three major countries in Africa which is Ghana , South Africa
> and Nigeria . It as been a very sad and bad moment for me, the present
> condition that i found myself is very hard for me to explain.
>   I am really stranded in Nigeria because I forgot my little bag in
> the Taxi where my money, passport, documents and other valuable things
> were kept on my way to the Hotel am staying, I am facing a hard time
> here because i have no money on me. I am now owning a hotel bill of
> $1050 and they wanted me to pay the bill soon else they will have to
> seize my bag and hand me over to the Hotel Management, I need this
> help from you urgently to help me back home, I need you to help me
> with the hotel bill and i will also need $1250 to feed and help myself
> back home so please can you help me with a sum of $2300 to sort out my
> problems here? I need this help so much and on time because i am in a
> terrible and tight situation here, I don't even have money to feed
> myself for a day which means i had been starving so please understand
> how urgent i need your help.i have decided not tell my family so that
> they will not be worried.when I return I will tell them and they will
> understand.            I am sending you this e-mail from the city
> Library and I only have 30 min, I will appreciate what so ever you can
> afford to send me for now and I promise to pay back your money as soon
> as i return home so please let me know on time so that i can forward
> you the details you need to transfer the money through Money Gram or
> Western Union.Hope to hear from you.
> > Thank you.
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > It's the same Hotmail®. If by "same" you mean up to 70% faster.
> >
>
http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_broa\
d1_122008
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The IP address locator at

http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm?GetLocation

shows that the IP address 66.218.67.96 is in New York.





--- In ClimateChangeAction@..., "Anne"
<cyberactivist@...> wrote:
>
> below are details of the message sent from the benny zable's email.
> This gives IP address (i think).
> Last i heard Benny was in Australia (a few weeks ago).
> the email addy looks like benny's so i dunno???
> i can only assume benny's email addy has been hacked by a spam bot.
> i will contact him direct on Facebook.
> Cheers
> Anne
>
>
> From bennyzable@... Fri Jan 02 10:08:37 2009
> Return-Path: bennyzable@...
> X-Sender: bennyzable@...
> X-Apparently-To: climatechangeaction@...
> X-Received: (qmail 97177 invoked from network); 2 Jan 2009 18:08:36
-0000
> X-Received: from unknown (66.218.67.96)
> by m53.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Jan 2009 18:08:36 -0000
> X-Received: from unknown (HELO blu0-omc1-s16.blu0.hotmail.com)
> (65.55.116.27)
> by mta17.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Jan 2009 18:08:36 -0000
> X-Received: from BLU108-W60 ([65.55.116.9]) by
> blu0-omc1-s16.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
> Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:08:36 -0800
> Message-ID: BLU108-W60549FC9566F47DF7B600CC1E20@...
> Return-Path: bennyzable@...
> Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 18:08:35 +0000
> Importance: Normal
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Bcc:
> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jan 2009 18:08:36.0093 (UTC)
> FILETIME=[217DDAD0:01C96D05]
> X-Originating-IP: 65.55.116.27
> X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0:0:0
> From: benny zable bennyzable@...
> Subject: Please, I Need Your Help Urgently...Reply soon.
> X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=78778304
> Content-Type: text/plain
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> --- In ClimateChangeAction@..., benny zable
> bennyzable@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hello Dear,
> > How are you doing today? I am sorry i didn't inform you about my
> traveling to Africa for a program called "Empowering Youth to Fight
> Racism, HIV/AIDS, Poverty and Lack of Education, the program is taking
> place in three major countries in Africa which is Ghana , South Africa
> and Nigeria . It as been a very sad and bad moment for me, the present
> condition that i found myself is very hard for me to explain.
>   I am really stranded in Nigeria because I forgot my little bag in
> the Taxi where my money, passport, documents and other valuable things
> were kept on my way to the Hotel am staying, I am facing a hard time
> here because i have no money on me. I am now owning a hotel bill of
> $1050 and they wanted me to pay the bill soon else they will have to
> seize my bag and hand me over to the Hotel Management, I need this
> help from you urgently to help me back home, I need you to help me
> with the hotel bill and i will also need $1250 to feed and help myself
> back home so please can you help me with a sum of $2300 to sort out my
> problems here? I need this help so much and on time because i am in a
> terrible and tight situation here, I don't even have money to feed
> myself for a day which means i had been starving so please understand
> how urgent i need your help.i have decided not tell my family so that
> they will not be worried.when I return I will tell them and they will
> understand.            I am sending you this e-mail from the city
> Library and I only have 30 min, I will appreciate what so ever you can
> afford to send me for now and I promise to pay back your money as soon
> as i return home so please let me know on time so that i can forward
> you the details you need to transfer the money through Money Gram or
> Western Union.Hope to hear from you.
> > Thank you.
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > It's the same Hotmail®. If by "same" you mean up to 70% faster.
> >
>
http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_broa\
d1_122008
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

below are details of the message sent from the benny zable's email.
This gives IP address (i think).
Last i heard Benny was in Australia (a few weeks ago).
the email addy looks like benny's so i dunno???
i can only assume benny's email addy has been hacked by a spam bot.
i will contact him direct on Facebook.
Cheers
Anne


From bennyzable@... Fri Jan 02 10:08:37 2009
Return-Path: <bennyzable@...>
X-Sender: bennyzable@...
X-Apparently-To: climatechangeaction@...
X-Received: (qmail 97177 invoked from network); 2 Jan 2009 18:08:36 -0000
X-Received: from unknown (66.218.67.96)
by m53.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Jan 2009 18:08:36 -0000
X-Received: from unknown (HELO blu0-omc1-s16.blu0.hotmail.com)
(65.55.116.27)
by mta17.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Jan 2009 18:08:36 -0000
X-Received: from BLU108-W60 ([65.55.116.9]) by
blu0-omc1-s16.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:08:36 -0800
Message-ID: <BLU108-W60549FC9566F47DF7B600CC1E20@...>
Return-Path: bennyzable@...
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 18:08:35 +0000
Importance: Normal
MIME-Version: 1.0
Bcc:
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jan 2009 18:08:36.0093 (UTC)
FILETIME=[217DDAD0:01C96D05]
X-Originating-IP: 65.55.116.27
X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0:0:0
From: benny zable <bennyzable@...>
Subject: Please, I Need Your Help Urgently...Reply soon.
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=78778304
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

--- In ClimateChangeAction@..., benny zable
<bennyzable@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hello Dear,
> How are you doing today? I am sorry i didn't inform you about my
traveling to Africa for a program called "Empowering Youth to Fight
Racism, HIV/AIDS, Poverty and Lack of Education, the program is taking
place in three major countries in Africa which is Ghana , South Africa
and Nigeria . It as been a very sad and bad moment for me, the present
condition that i found myself is very hard for me to explain.
   I am really stranded in Nigeria because I forgot my little bag in
the Taxi where my money, passport, documents and other valuable things
were kept on my way to the Hotel am staying, I am facing a hard time
here because i have no money on me. I am now owning a hotel bill of
$1050 and they wanted me to pay the bill soon else they will have to
seize my bag and hand me over to the Hotel Management, I need this
help from you urgently to help me back home, I need you to help me
with the hotel bill and i will also need $1250 to feed and help myself
back home so please can you help me with a sum of $2300 to sort out my
problems here? I need this help so much and on time because i am in a
terrible and tight situation here, I don't even have money to feed
myself for a day which means i had been starving so please understand
how urgent i need your help.i have decided not tell my family so that
they will not be worried.when I return I will tell them and they will
understand.            I am sending you this e-mail from the city
Library and I only have 30 min, I will appreciate what so ever you can
afford to send me for now and I promise to pay back your money as soon
as i return home so please let me know on time so that i can forward
you the details you need to transfer the money through Money Gram or
Western Union.Hope to hear from you.
> Thank you.
> _________________________________________________________________
> It's the same Hotmail®. If by "same" you mean up to 70% faster.
>
http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_broad1_12200\
8
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Hiya Anna :-)

Ty for this wonderfully positive post. Great Stuff!!!
i just wrote to the front page of the website and thought i should
share with the group.
http://globalclimatechangeaction.org/2009

Dear friends

Just a short note to wish visitors and members a joy filled 2009.

It appears such a short time ago that an ignorance and lack of factual
information ruled along with our leaders.

How wonderful it feels to KNOW that the technology exists to salvage
our species and to provide endless, clean technology which does not
poison our planet.

Our new leaders are aware of this technology.

It is up to them now to lead their people and to protect our planet
from further abuse. Their time has come to lead us into sustainable
energy supplies and a just and fair system of government. Governments
with international and local treaties and a united global declaration
of a Bills of Rights.

The documentation is freely available on the net and/or within this
important website.

I am very proud of this website (and each and every member of the
Yahoo Climate Change Action Group)

Together we have shown that dedication and individual efforts can win
the wars we have raged. We have raised public awareness and in doing
so the truth has been noticed and further publicised.

A new way forward is now available as an alternative to the past.
Our leaders must choose.

If Numerology interests you the year of 11 marks a time in history of
spiritual growth and fulfillment for our species.

I celebrate my joy with you all and look forward to a deeply spiritual
and ACTION packed 2009 !

Hugz
Anne Jackson
of "Neekidpplkuvauriz", Qld, Australia
3/1/2009




--- In ClimateChangeAction@..., "Anna Keenan"
<anna.c.keenan@...> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone.
>
> I've been thinking long and hard about what to write to you all to
ring in
> the new year.  I've come up with what follows:
>
> 2009 is the year.
>
> We are going to win the climate change battle.
>
> I have no doubt in my mind, nor any doubt in my heart. We are going
to win.
> In fact, we already have won.
>
> The trick is to keep doing exactly what you are doing. We are on the
right
> track. You are part of the road to success.
>
> If you disagree, please give me a call and I'll convince you that you're
> wrong.
>
> If you passionately agree, tell everyone you know.
>
> Call me if you want to.
>
> Lots of love,
> Anna K
> --
> Anna Keenan
> Youth Climate Advocate
> anna.c.keenan@...
> anna.keenan@...
> +61 (0) 419 792 263
> Skype ID: anna.c.keenan
> UNYK ID: 124 AGR
>
> The Australian Youth Climate Coalition unites over 20 diverse youth
> organisations to build a generation-wide movement to solve climate
change.
> Our alliance combines our forces, leveraging our collective power to
create
> change for a clean, efficient, just and renewable energy future. We
inspire,
> educate, empower and mobilise young Australians to take action on
climate
> change. We coordinate, communicate and network with each other, and run
> shared projects and campaigns. www.aycc.org.au
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Thankyou Hugh, and thankyou Boris,

I have emailed an alert to Anne.

Happy New year to all Members!

Peter Bright
Tasmania



--- In ClimateChangeAction@..., "Boris Branwhite"
<orchidman@...> wrote:
>
> yeah thats what i thought - but the scammers didnt leave an addy to
send money - can someone call benny?
>
>
>   Now this IS original !!
>
>   I gather that there are 'boiler rooms' in Nigeria who just pump this
stuff
>   out - about the only employment that reasonably educated and
computer
>   literate kids can make any money!
>
>   (I'm getting porno ads from MY email address - and can't do anything
about it!
>   and that seems to be from Russia)
>
>   H
>
>   >Hello Dear,
>   >How are you doing today? I am sorry i didn't inform you about my
traveling
>   >to Africa for a program called "Empowering Youth to Fight Racism,
>   >HIV/AIDS, Poverty and Lack of Education, the program is taking
place in
>   >three major countries in Africa which is Ghana , South Africa and
Nigeria
>   >. It as been a very sad and bad moment for me, the present
condition that
>   >i found myself is very hard for me to explain. I am really
>   >stranded in Nigeria because I forgot my little bag in the Taxi
where my
>   >money, passport, documents and other valuable things were kept on
my way
>   >to the Hotel am staying, I am facing a hard time here because i
have no
>   >money on me. I am now owning a hotel bill of $1050 and they wanted
me to
>   >pay the bill soon else they will have to seize my bag and hand me
over to
>   >the Hotel Management, I need this help from you urgently to help me
back
>   >home, I need you to help me with the hotel bill and i will also
need $1250
>   >to feed and help myself back home so please can you help me with a
sum of
>   >$2300 to sort out my problems here? I need this help so much and on
time
>   >because i am in a terrible and tight situation here, I don't even
have
>   >money to feed myself for a day which means i had been starving so
please
>   >understand how urgent i need your help.i have decided not tell my
family
>   >so that they will not be worried.when I return I will tell them and
they
>   >will understand. I am sending you this e-mail from the city
>   >Library and I only have 30 min, I will appreciate what so ever you
can
>   >afford to send me for now and I promise to pay back your money as
soon as
>   >i return home so please let me know on time so that i can forward
you the
>   >details you need to transfer the money through Money Gram or
Western
>   >Union.Hope to hear from you.
>   >Thank you.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------\
------
>
>
>   No virus found in this incoming message.
>   Checked by AVG.
>   Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.2/1871 - Release Date:
1/01/2009 5:01 PM
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

yeah thats what i thought - but the scammers didnt leave an addy to send money -
can someone call benny?


   Now this IS original !!

   I gather that there are 'boiler rooms' in Nigeria who just pump this stuff
   out - about the only employment that reasonably educated and computer
   literate kids can make any money!

   (I'm getting porno ads from MY email address - and can't do anything about it!
   and that seems to be from Russia)

   H

   >Hello Dear,
   >How are you doing today? I am sorry i didn't inform you about my traveling
   >to Africa for a program called "Empowering Youth to Fight Racism,
   >HIV/AIDS, Poverty and Lack of Education, the program is taking place in
   >three major countries in Africa which is Ghana , South Africa and Nigeria
   >. It as been a very sad and bad moment for me, the present condition that
   >i found myself is very hard for me to explain. I am really
   >stranded in Nigeria because I forgot my little bag in the Taxi where my
   >money, passport, documents and other valuable things were kept on my way
   >to the Hotel am staying, I am facing a hard time here because i have no
   >money on me. I am now owning a hotel bill of $1050 and they wanted me to
   >pay the bill soon else they will have to seize my bag and hand me over to
   >the Hotel Management, I need this help from you urgently to help me back
   >home, I need you to help me with the hotel bill and i will also need $1250
   >to feed and help myself back home so please can you help me with a sum of
   >$2300 to sort out my problems here? I need this help so much and on time
   >because i am in a terrible and tight situation here, I don't even have
   >money to feed myself for a day which means i had been starving so please
   >understand how urgent i need your help.i have decided not tell my family
   >so that they will not be worried.when I return I will tell them and they
   >will understand. I am sending you this e-mail from the city
   >Library and I only have 30 min, I will appreciate what so ever you can
   >afford to send me for now and I promise to pay back your money as soon as
   >i return home so please let me know on time so that i can forward you the
   >details you need to transfer the money through Money Gram or Western
   >Union.Hope to hear from you.
   >Thank you.






------------------------------------------------------------------------------


   No virus found in this incoming message.
   Checked by AVG.
   Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.2/1871 - Release Date: 1/01/2009
5:01 PM


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Now this IS original !!

I gather that there are 'boiler rooms' in Nigeria who just pump this stuff
out - about the only employment that reasonably educated and computer
literate kids can make any money!

(I'm getting porno ads from MY email address - and can't do anything about it!
and that seems to be from Russia)

H



>Hello Dear,
>How are you doing today? I am sorry i didn't inform you about my traveling
>to Africa for a program called "Empowering Youth to Fight Racism,
>HIV/AIDS, Poverty and Lack of Education, the program is taking place in
>three major countries in Africa which is Ghana , South Africa and Nigeria
>. It as been a very sad and bad moment for me, the present condition that
>i found myself is very hard for me to explain.           I am really
>stranded in Nigeria because I forgot my little bag in the Taxi where my
>money, passport, documents and other valuable things were kept on my way
>to the Hotel am staying, I am facing a hard time here because i have no
>money on me. I am now owning a hotel bill of $1050 and they wanted me to
>pay the bill soon else they will have to seize my bag and hand me over to
>the Hotel Management, I need this help from you urgently to help me back
>home, I need you to help me with the hotel bill and i will also need $1250
>to feed and help myself back home so please can you help me with a sum of
>$2300 to sort out my problems here? I need this help so much and on time
>because i am in a terrible and tight situation here, I don't even have
>money to feed myself for a day which means i had been starving so please
>understand how urgent i need your help.i have decided not tell my family
>so that they will not be worried.when I return I will tell them and they
>will understand.            I am sending you this e-mail from the city
>Library and I only have 30 min, I will appreciate what so ever you can
>afford to send me for now and I promise to pay back your money as soon as
>i return home so please let me know on time so that i can forward you the
>details you need to transfer the money through Money Gram or Western
>Union.Hope to hear from you.
>Thank you.

Hello Dear,
How are you doing today? I am sorry i didn't inform you about my traveling to
Africa for a program called "Empowering Youth to Fight Racism, HIV/AIDS, Poverty
and Lack of Education, the program is taking place in three major countries in
Africa which is Ghana , South Africa and Nigeria . It as been a very sad and bad
moment for me, the present condition that i found myself is very hard for me to
explain.           I am really stranded in Nigeria because I forgot my little
bag in the Taxi where my money, passport, documents and other valuable things
were kept on my way to the Hotel am staying, I am facing a hard time here
because i have no money on me. I am now owning a hotel bill of $1050 and they
wanted me to pay the bill soon else they will have to seize my bag and hand me
over to the Hotel Management, I need this help from you urgently to help me back
home, I need you to help me with the hotel bill and i will also need $1250 to
feed and help myself back home so please can you help me with a sum of $2300 to
sort out my problems here? I need this help so much and on time because i am in
a terrible and tight situation here, I don't even have money to feed myself for
a day which means i had been starving so please understand how urgent i need
your help.i have decided not tell my family so that they will not be
worried.when I return I will tell them and they will understand.            I am
sending you this e-mail from the city Library and I only have 30 min, I will
appreciate what so ever you can afford to send me for now and I promise to pay
back your money as soon as i return home so please let me know on time so that i
can forward you the details you need to transfer the money through Money Gram or
Western Union.Hope to hear from you.
Thank you.
_________________________________________________________________
It’s the same Hotmail®. If by “same” you mean up to 70% faster.
http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_broad1_12200\
8

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi everyone.

I've been thinking long and hard about what to write to you all to ring in
the new year.  I've come up with what follows:

2009 is the year.

We are going to win the climate change battle.

I have no doubt in my mind, nor any doubt in my heart. We are going to win.
In fact, we already have won.

The trick is to keep doing exactly what you are doing. We are on the right
track. You are part of the road to success.

If you disagree, please give me a call and I'll convince you that you're
wrong.

If you passionately agree, tell everyone you know.

Call me if you want to.

Lots of love,
Anna K
--
Anna Keenan
Youth Climate Advocate
anna.c.keenan@...
anna.keenan@...
+61 (0) 419 792 263
Skype ID: anna.c.keenan
UNYK ID: 124 AGR

The Australian Youth Climate Coalition unites over 20 diverse youth
organisations to build a generation-wide movement to solve climate change.
Our alliance combines our forces, leveraging our collective power to create
change for a clean, efficient, just and renewable energy future. We inspire,
educate, empower and mobilise young Australians to take action on climate
change. We coordinate, communicate and network with each other, and run
shared projects and campaigns. www.aycc.org.au


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Logo]

January 01 2009            Threat of global warming justifies breaking
the law
Michael McCarthy,  Environment Editor Independent.co.uk
The threat of global warming is so great that campaigners were justified
in causing more than £35,000 worth of damage to a coal-fired power
station, a jury decided yesterday. In a verdict that will have shocked
ministers and energy companies the jury at Maidstone Crown Court cleared
six Greenpeace activists of criminal damage. Read more here
<http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cleared-jury-de\
cides-that-threat-of-global-warming-justifies-breaking-the-law-925561.ht\
ml>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

SOMETHING TO FEST ABOUT.
Join me with posting this wonderful idea around, during this next week towards
the new year.

An achievable goal to seeding the Australian Ministry for Peace for within 100
days from January 1st. 2009.

(Also attached is a petition to download.)

To those who live elsewhere on the planet, let 2009 be a year of declaring peace
on the world, that blossoms into a race establishing Ministries/Departments of
Peace, which fund creations of  non violent conflict resolving
instrumentalities.

This will greatly help us citizens to concentrate on making this world a safer
place for future generations.

Benny Zable

Websites to check out.
The Peace Alliance - Campaign for a Department of Peace - Home Page
25th December, 2008
  To the Australian Prime Minister The Honourable Kevin Rudd, MP,and Leader of
the Opposition The Honourable Malcolm Turnbull, MP
  Here is an opportunity for the Australian government to lead in helping resolve
the conflicts existing on Earth among ourselves, within our region, country and
the world.
As we approach the end of the United Nations International Decade for a Culture
of Peace and Non-violence for Children of the World, 2001 - 2010, we now have an
opportunity to cross the bridge from a culture of war to a culture of peace. The
goal is to achieve the establishment of a Ministry For Peace within the first
100 days of the inauguration of the new President of the USA.
This letter asks that the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition, along
with their parliamentary colleagues to co-operate in establishing an Australian
Ministry For Peace to achieve the following objectives:
• gather, analyse and utilize information and recommendations from local and
global peace organisations;
• formulate and advocate policies that promote peace at all levels of society,
personal, domestic, regional, State, Federal, and global;
• support and influence the already existing global movement for every nation to
establish a Ministry For Peace;
• encourage the Australian population to observe and celebrate all endeavours
created for peace on a personal, local, national and international level;
• administer an Australian Peace Academy to teach world'’s best practices and
effective techniques for the amelioration of violence and conflict among
domestic and international populations;
• promote, develop and advertise educational programs to teach violence
prevention, creative mediation and conflict resolution methods in schools,
universities, the military, and conflicting cultures both here and abroad;
• enable equal opportunities for the peacemakers to liaise with government
departments and decision makers in helping resolve local and global conflicts
towards a world-wide culture of peace and non-violence;
• liaise with civilian peacekeepers to participate in non-violent peace-building
initiatives;
• provide prevention programs addressing domestic, gang, drug, alcohol and
gambling related violence; and
• develop field-tested educational strategies to promote conflict resolution and
peer mediation in schools.
We suggest that you network and publish this initiative to inform others about
this valuable opportunity, and/or write a personal letter recommending the
proposal to the Prime Minister and your local Councils and Members of State and
Federal Parliaments.
The goal is for Australia to take the lead and establish a Ministry For Peace
within the first quarter of 2009. If Australia leads, other nations will follow.
Franklin Scarf, JPLife Member, Executive Committee of the United Nations
Association of Australia (NSW) Incwww.unaansw.org.aufranklin@...
4782 26250408 267 195




_________________________________________________________________
Messenger's gift to you! Download free emoticons today!
http://livelife.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=669758

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

New Zealand turbines being assembled
<http://www.stuff.co.nz/4801081a11.html>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

By *Martin Khor*

December 15, 2008 -- The two crises of our times — economic recession
and global warming — should be tackled together. The trillions of
dollars earmarked for economic recovery can be spent to fight climate
change. The economic crisis should not stop governments from serious
action to combat climate change, but should instead be an opportunity to
fund climate-related activities.

Full article at http://links.org.au/node/811

Subscribe free to /Links - International Journal of Socialist Renewal/ -
at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373

Quote  "  The review proposes a formula for assessing comparability of
effort of various countries  towards effective global efforts embodying
various degrees of ambition. Within a global effort  to hold concentrations
at 450 parts per million (ppm), Australia's proportionate share of the
effort would reduce emissions entitlements to 25 per cent of 2000 emissions
by 2020, and 90  per cent by 2050. Within a global effort to hold
concentrations at 550 ppm, Australia's  proportionate share would be to
reduce entitlements for 2020 by 10 per cent from 2000  levels, and
entitlements for 2050 by 80 per cent."


550 ppm???

Jasus!!

but relax... they are only numbers ... global warming is just a big hoax -
aimed at letting the greens control the world..(:-o)

still basically BAU (and population growthAU)

H

http://www.theage.com.au/national/australia-counts-itself-out-20081219-72ei.html
?page=-1

  Australia counts itself out

Ross Garnaut
Opinion
The Age
December 20, 2008

   IN THE course of the work on climate change, members of the Garnaut
Climate Change  Review team would sometimes ask how, when the work and the
responses to it were all  over, we would judge whether our efforts had been
successful. Would the main indicator be  the extent to which the Australian
Government accepted the final report's main  recommendations?

   "No," I would respond. "Policy decisions will reflect a range of
pressures and constraints  about which we are not now in a position to
assess, and about which the Government is  elected to form judgements. We
will have done our job if the Australian community and  Australian
governments understand the implications of decisions that are taken."

   Whatever the pressures and constraints that have shaped the white paper,
the policy  decisions embodied in it have implications for the environment
and the economy.

   The policy proposals in this week's white paper, should they become law,
will be historic. The  embodiment of the white paper proposals in law would
mark the beginning of comprehensive  action in Australia to mitigate the
growth in Australian greenhouse gas emissions. Australia  would have taken
a step at which several other countries have stumbled. It would have taken
this step in difficult times for the domestic and international economy. It
would have taken this  step in the context of the most pervasive pressure
on the policy process from vested  interests since the Scullin government,
and of the most expensive, elaborate and  sophisticated lobbying pressure
on the policy process ever in this country. It will have taken  this step
in the face of resistance from Her Majesty's Opposition.

   The white paper has been greatly criticised by environmental groups for
its "soft targets".

   The review recommended, and I support, the most widely and strongly
condemned of the  "soft targets"the commitment unconditionally to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by 5 per  cent from 2000 levels by 2020.

   It costs much more to reduce emissions in isolation than in the context
of global action.  Action in isolation does almost nothing in itself to
solve the environmental problem. The  purpose of acting at all in the
absence of comprehensive global agreement is to keep alive  the hopes of
eventual effective global agreement. Australian emissions are currently
significantly above 1990 levels. 2020 is not far away. Our population grows
strongly, because  we, for good reasons, have chosen to keep our doors open
to people from many lands. Our  new citizens need transport, a home with
the Australian accompaniments, and access to  income from employment, all
of which generate greenhouse gas emissions. The white  paper's
unconditional target is a challenging one in the absence of an
international  agreement. To go further would run the risk that Australia's
example of early action would be  negative rather than positive in its
influence on others.

   The white paper's proposed conditional targets are more problematic.

   The review proposes a formula for assessing comparability of effort of
various countries  towards effective global efforts embodying various
degrees of ambition. Within a global effort  to hold concentrations at 450
parts per million (ppm), Australia's proportionate share of the  effort
would reduce emissions entitlements to 25 per cent of 2000 emissions by
2020, and 90  per cent by 2050. Within a global effort to hold
concentrations at 550 ppm, Australia's  proportionate share would be to
reduce entitlements for 2020 by 10 per cent from 2000  levels, and
entitlements for 2050 by 80 per cent.

   The review analyses the economic and environmental costs of global action
to mitigate  climate change, with Australia playing its full, proportionate
part. It concludes that it is in  Australia's interests to seek the
strongest possible global mitigation outcome.

   Australia should indicate its willingness to play its proportionate part
in a global agreement to  bring greenhouse gas concentrations back to 450
ppm, or eventually to lower levels. Should  this not be possible, Australia
should play its proportionate part in the best possible outcome.  This may
turn out to be an effective agreement on 550 ppm in the first instance.
International  success at this level of ambition would strengthen
confidence in and support for stronger  outcomes in subsequent
negotiations.

   The white paper proposes a variation on this theme. It proposes emissions
reductions for  Australia up to 15 per cent from 2000 levels, "in the
context of global agreement under which  all major economies commit to
substantially restrain emissions and advanced economies  take on reductions
comparable to Australia". It proposes that, "in the event that a
comprehensive global agreement were to emerge over time, involving
emissions  commitments by both developed and developing countries that are
consistent with long-term  stabilisation of atmospheric concentrations of
greenhouse gases at 450 ppm or lower,  Australia is prepared to establish
its post-2020 targets so as to ensure it plays its full role in  achieving
the agreed goal".

   The Prime Minister's speech to the National Press Club notes that
Australia would have to  reduce its emissions by more than 60 per cent by
2050 within a 450 ppm global agreement,  and that he would seek a mandate
at a general election to amend current policy as required.

   The white paper refers extensively to the review on these matters. Policy
Position 1.1 says:  "The Government accepts the key findings of the Garnaut
Climate Change Review, that  effective global agreement delivering
concentrations of greenhouse gases at around 450  parts per million or
lower would be in Australia's interests"; that "achieving global commitment
to emissions reductions of this order appears unlikely in the next
commitment period"; and  that "the most prospective pathway to this goal is
to embark on global action " that "builds  confidence". These sentences are
repeated exactly as Policy Proposition 4.1, and twice  elsewhere.

   I did not actually use all of these words. However, pursuit of the
approach proposed in the  review may lead to the same end point as the
white paper: Australia playing its full part in a  global agreement to hold
concentrations at 550 ppm or, say, 520 ppm, following  Copenhagen, and its
full part in a more ambitious agreement as that becomes possible after
2020.

   And yet the white paper's variations on the review's themes matter.

   The white paper rules out Australia contributing to a global effort to
achieve ambitious  mitigation targets prior to 2020. That is a pity. There
is a chance, just a chance, that with  Barack Obama as president of the
United States, high ambition at Copenhagen will turn out  to be feasible.
In the meantime, Australia cannot play a strongly positive role in
encouraging  the global community towards the best possible outcomes if it
has ruled out in advance its  own participation in strong outcomes.

   This weakness of the white paper could be corrected without substantial
unpicking of the  policy package.

   The review argued that an effective global agreement including developing
countries would  need to allocate emissions entitlements on a per capita
basis, converging to equal per capita  entitlements at some time around the
middle of next century. This in itself would be  favourable to Australia in
comparison with the developed and transitional countries with low
immigration and slow or negative population growth.

   But we cannot expect our advocacy of a new and superior approach to
allocating emissions  entitlements across countries to be effective in the
international community, if we accept only  implications that favour us
(taking population growth into account), but not other implications
(converging towards equal per capita entitlements).

   Three elements of the white paper proposals lead towards large transfers
from the general  community to particular interests, and to fiscal and
environmental risks.

   There is no public policy justification for $3.9 billion in unconditional
payments to generators  in relation to hypothetical future "loss of asset
value".

   Never in the history of Australian public finance has so much been given
without public policy  purpose, by so many, to so few. The best that can be
said is that these are once-and-for-all  payments  unless the spectacular
success of investment in lobbying inspires repetition and  emulation.

   There is large risk to the public finances in the five-year price cap for
emissions permits. The  cap is to be set at an Australian dollar price that
is likely to be exceeded by international  prices at some point in the
first five years of the scheme. When that point is reached, the  Australian
taxpayer will have to fund the purchase of permits from other countries at
international prices, and to underwrite the difference between the cap and
international  prices. At that point, there will be powerful commercial
incentives for market participants to  buy at capped prices and to hoard
standard permits for future use or sale. This increases the  fiscal risk.

   The proposed issue of free permits to trade-exposed emissions-intensive
industries raises  different issues. Like free permits to generators and
the price cap, it carries risks to the public  finances  in this case, of
much greater dimension. Unlike the other instruments of transfer  from the
general community to particular instruments, it is based on a sound public
policy  objective.

   The problems arise from the absence from the white paper of a sound
conceptual basis for  payments. Section 14.5 of the final report sets out
the principle upon which payments should  be made to trade-exposed
industries: compensating firms for the effect that the absence of
comparable carbon constraints in other countries has on sales prices. The
white paper  acknowledges that this is the correct principle, but does not
seek to apply it.

   The consequences of not having a principled basis for the issue of
payments are profound.

   Wherever the partial application of a carbon constraint in other
countries is having an effect  on international prices, there can be
overcompensation of Australian producers. Carbon  constraints are now being
applied in many developed countries, including most states in the  US, and
in major developing countries including South Africa and China. They will
increase in  importance.

   Sound principles would result in the automatic withdrawal of payments as
carbon constraints  emerge in other countries. With political bargaining
determining payments, as in the white  paper, there is no obvious point at
which payments would be partially or completely  withdrawn. Further, even
if there were a comprehensive international agreement that  removed the
case for payments, five years' notice would need to be given for
withdrawal.

   The July green paper proposed placing a cap of 20 per cent on value of
permits issued to  trade-exposed enterprises outside agriculture, or 35 per
cent including agriculture. As  indicated in the final report, these are
reasonable upper limits to principled initial claims.

   A principled approach to payments to trade-exposed industries would
generate an early and  continuing decline in the proportion of payments to
trade-exposed industries as carbon  constraints were extended elsewhere. By
contrast, the white paper's approach would result in  the proportion of
permit value given free to trade-exposed industries rising to 45 per cent
in  2020 on restrictive assumptions.

   The ratio would rise well beyond 45 per cent if trade-exposed sectors
grew more rapidly than  the rest of the economy, or if reductions in
emissions were greater than 5 per cent.

   The ratio could rise to 65 per cent with an emissions reduction target of
15 per cent and with  trade-exposed industries growing twice as rapidly as
the rest of the world. With similar  relative growth rates and an emissions
reductions target of 25 per cent, three-quarters of  permit value would be
transferred to trade-exposed industries.

   And yet the revenue pool from sale of permits is exhausted at 45 per cent
by the household  compensation arrangements proposed in the white paper.
Already there is nothing left for  increases in payments to households as
the carbon price rises over time. Little is left for  incentives for
research, development and commercialisation of low-emissions technologies,
which are essential components of the domestic and international mitigation
efforts. Nothing  is left for systematic support for overcoming information
and contractual market failures  inhibiting energy-saving in low-income
households.

   WHAT happens as the claims of the trade-exposed industries rise above 45
per cent? To the  extent payments to trade-exposed industries deviate from
those that are necessary to  compensate for the absence of carbon
constraints in other countries, they introduce  distortions into
international trade.

   One justification for unexpectedly high payments to trade-exposed
industries in both Europe  and Australia  and presumably other countries
one by one  is the global recession.

   The Smoot-Hawley tariff in the US in the 1930s, and the competitive
increases in protection  in other countries that it inspired, made the
Great Depression much deeper than it would  otherwise have been. Will the
treatment of trade-exposed industries become the Smoot-Hawley tariff
following the Great Crash of 2008?

   The introduction of a sound basis in principle for trade-exposed
industries is an urgent matter  for the restoration of global prosperity,
as well as for Australian fiscal integrity, and for the  avoidance of high
risks of dangerous climate change.

   Professor Ross Garnaut is the Federal Government's climate adviser.   __._,


* maybe that should be "Government's Economic climate adviser....."


_.___

Oh dear - we are so stuck on the tar-baby of economic (and population)
growth - that I despair of any rational behaviour by government on this
issue.
I suspect  that the only way to get real change is through a citizen's
revolt - assuming there are enough citizens who can pull the i-pod ear
plugs out, or turn off their DVD's.... and take notice of what is happening

What about our children's future???

what, indeed...

H





     Two articles:


1.  Warm-up act in climate war Garnaut slams climate plan
   ------------------------------
   http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24824789-11949,00.html

Warm-up act in climate war

Lenore Taylor, National correspondent |
December 20, 2008
The Australian

   ONE weekend early this month, Resources Minister Martin Ferguson boarded
a plane to  Perth to meet Woodside boss Don Voelte, who had not endeared
himself to the Rudd  Government. The energy group's chief executive had
started to attack the Government's  proposed emissions trading scheme to
reduce greenhouse gas output the day after a  discussion paper was launched
in July, and didn't let up for months.

   When the global financial crisis hit, he pronounced the ETS "dead on
arrival". Some of  Ferguson's colleagues were calling Voelte "the Sol
Trujillo of the resources sector". The  comparison to the spirited Telstra
chief showed how much they didn't like him.

   The July discussion paper on an official auction and trading system for
pollution rights to  encourage cleaner industry had included a formula for
handing up to 90 per cent of required  pollution permits free to export
industries whose overseas competitors do not pay a price on  carbon
emissions, until such time as a global climate change deal is struck.

   The problem facing Voelte and other CEOs of liquefied natural gas
companies was that the  free-permits formula was set at a level that
excluded LNG. Even in November, when officials  from the Department of
Climate Change began canvassing a lower compensation threshold  in private
talks with resource industries, LNG companies calculated they still would
miss out.  But when the Government's final scheme was unveiled in a white
paper on Monday, it baldly  asserted that LNG was "likely to be eligible"
to receive 60 per cent of its emission permits for  free. Voelte issued a
meek statement acknowledging the result.

Uncharacteristically, he  refused to make further comment.

   Officials insist the last-minute inclusion of LNG was because the
companies had finally  provided figures that showed they would meet the new
eligibility criteria after all. Those close  to the decision-making process
insist cabinet had decided that "one way or another, LNG  would get in". In
other words it was a political deal, finessed by Ferguson and other
ministers  in one-on-one meetings with Voelte and the other CEOs.

   If those who have spent months crunching the numbers to find out who got
free assistance  were astonished at LNG's inclusion in the ETS compensation
scheme, they were also  perplexed by the exclusion of coalmining. The final
scheme design explains that coalmines  produce vastly different quantities
of the potent greenhouse gas methane, depending on their  geology, and it
was therefore difficult to include them in the general compensation scheme.

   The coal industry says it would have been quite easy to include mines
above a certain  emissions intensity. But the Government chose to offer
coalmines $750 million over five  years in an "abatement fund". Some of the
abatement money will still go to buy permits for  the gassiest mines, but
they will obtain far fewer than they would have under the general
compensation arrangements. The coal industry is unhappy, to put it mildly.

   Privately, government sources are blunt. It would have been politically
unacceptable to offer  free permits for "dirty coal". Leaving it out was
another political decision. Minerals Council of  Australia CEO Mitch Hooke
has no doubt the Government made a "unilateral decision to  exclude coal
because of the political odium" of giving free permits to coal.

   The curious story of the treatment of coal and LNG is really the story of
the entire emissions  trading scheme.

   It is a political deal cut with big industries that are also big
employers, with an eye to the  forthcoming political deals that will have
to be made in the Senate and the even bigger  political deals that will be
made around the negotiating table with other countries at the UN  talks in
Copenhagen next year.

   The backdrop to all the deal-making is the economic crisis and Kevin
Rudd's determination  that Australia will start the extensive
re-engineering process of becoming a low-carbon  economy slowly and not at
the cost of Australian jobs or his chances of re-election.

   Ongoing qualitative polling and old-fashioned political common sense
convinced the  Government that while swinging voters in the mortgage belt
cared about climate change, they  weren't prepared to make big sacrifices
in terms of their standard of living. So the  Government was generous with
its industry compensation, giving away in free industry  permits a full
$2.9 billion worth of the $11.5billion it expects to raise in the first
year of the  scheme. That represents 25 per cent of available permits, but
the proportion could rise to 45  per cent by 2020, depending on how fast
these industries grow.

   The Government had already made the political compromise of offsetting
any increase in  petrol prices - blowing another $2.4 billion in the first
year - and it allocated $700 million in the  first year to ease the shock
for the dirtiest brown-coal power generators, even though its  advice
suggested it was highly unlikely there would be any disruptions to
electricity supply.

   Taken together, these political deals and compromises with industry had a
fateful effect on  the Government's ability to push ahead with the thing
the whole exercise was supposed to  achieve: actually reducing Australia's
carbon emissions.

   The Government has pledged that Australia will reduce its emissions to 5
per cent below  2000 levels by 2020, and has left open the possibility that
it could increase that target to cuts  of 10 or 15 per cent as part of a
global agreement including other leading emitters.

   But as its own climate adviser Ross Garnaut points out today, going for a
higher emission  reduction target, especially if trade-exposed industries
grow faster than the rest of the  economy, leaves open a "substantial risk"
that the ETS will no longer fund itself through the  revenue raised by
auctioning pollution permits, but will instead eat into the budget bottom
line.

   And Garnaut also points out that the Government has not set out clear
criteria for unwinding  the expensive political deals, making it very
difficult to do so.

   It has promised to review the assistance every five years but has not
said exactly how  comprehensive a global deal would be needed for the
compensation to start to be withdrawn.  It has also promised five years'
notice of any changes in the assistance program.

   Think how successive governments have failed to meet their promises to
withdraw taxpayer  assistance to the car industry and you get some idea how
long and painful the process might  be.

   The corner into which the Government has painted itself is made clear by
calculations by  local think tank the Climate Institute, according to which
the cumulative effect of the political  deals with industry severely limits
the Government's ability to bump up the ambition of its  emissions
reductions.

   According to the Climate Institute, a 5 per cent national target means
the non-shielded parts  of the economy have to reduce their emissions by 18
per cent. If the Government tried for a  15 per cent national cut, the rest
of the economy would have to reduce its emissions by a  whopping 29 per
cent.

   The Government has overcompensated low and middle-income households in
the first year -  at a total cost of $3.9 billion, assuming it gets $25 for
each pollution permit it auctions - but if  more and more of the auction
revenue is eaten up by free permits to industry, there will be  less money
available for the increasing burden on the rest of the economy.

   Officials have conceded household compensation may need to be funded from
the budget in  the future, rather than from the revenue the scheme
generates from the auction of pollution  permits. That is if there is no
comprehensive global deal and if trade-exposed industries keep  getting
bigger proportions of the free permits, and if the Government increases the
ambition  of Australia's target.
   The Government paints this as a remote possibility; Garnaut and the
Climate Institute think it  is a whole lot more likely, which means in
effect the compensation deals have almost  certainly locked in modest
targets in the first decade of the scheme.

   The Government cannot afford to go much harder, no matter what is decided
in  Copenhagen. Still, the furious shoe-throwing reaction to the
Government's compromise from  the environment movement is steeped in
politics, too. The political imperative of the Greens  is to build momentum
towards an international deal of sufficient momentum that it would halt
further global warming blamed on emissions.

   But all governments, not just ours, have other pressures bearing down on
them. The  European Union, which has led the world on the issue, has
promised 20per cent cuts on  1990 levels by 2020. But it is already well
along the way to that target by virtue of having shut  down the filthy and
inefficient production in eastern Europe. It is also protecting its
industry to  an even greater extent than Australia. European manufacturers
will have to buy only 20 per  cent of their permits at auction in 2013,
rising to 70 per cent by 2020. Australia's big  manufacturers will be
buying 100 per cent of theirs from 2010. If European industries are  deemed
to be trade-exposed, they won't have to buy any permits at all, which puts
our deals  and concessions well in the shade.

   US president-elect Barack Obama, who will finally break the impasse that
has stalled  international climate talks for eight years, is pledging not
to cut US emissions by 2020, but  instead to stabilise them at 2000 levels.

   And that's before he's even started discussing things with Congress.

   Australia, too, has a few more rounds of negotiations before its scheme
becomes law. Every  interest group and every industry that didn't quite get
what it was asking for is beating a path  to the Senate.

   Heavy industry says the costs it must bear are still considerable despite
the Government's  concessions. Industries including cement and coal are
already lobbying the Coalition for  more changes. But the Coalition is
split on the issue and using an inquiry to buy time to come  up with a
unified position by the time the Government unveils its exposure
legislation early  next year. In the meantime, conservationists are
mounting a last-ditch campaign to convince  every senator who will listen
that this scheme makes neither environmental nor economic  sense.

   It's said a camel is a horse designed by committee, which makes you
wonder what kind of  bizarre ETS creature could emerge from the upper
house.



   -------------------------------

http://www.theage.com.au/national/garnaut-slams-climate-plan-20081219-72dl.html?
page=-1

   Garnaut slams climate plan

       * Michelle Grattan
* December 20, 2008

   ROSS Garnaut has launched a scathing attack on the Government's emissions
trading  policy, condemning its failure to embrace a more ambitious goal
and the multibillion-dollar  compensation for electricity generators.

   In his first intervention after Monday's unveiling of the Government's
blueprint, Professor  Garnaut  the Government's climate guru  said last
night that the plan would get "5½ out  of 10 at a good university".

   Writing in today's Age, he says it makes large transfers of money "from
the general  community to particular interests", and warns of its fiscal
and environmental risks.

   There is "no public policy justification for $3.9 billion in
unconditional payments to generators"  for hypothetical future loss of
asset value.
   "Never in the history of Australian public finance has so much been given
without public  policy purpose, by so many, to so few," he writes. "The
best that can be said is that these are  once-and-for-all payments  unless
the spectacular success of investment in lobbying  inspires repetition and
emulation."

   But he does endorse the Government's unilateral target of a 5 per cent
reduction on 2000  levels by 2020, which is in line with his review.

   But that review said a 25 per cent target should be kept on the table in
the slight hope of a  comprehensive international agreement. The Government
says it won't consider such a  target until after 2020. The review was also
much tougher than the white paper in proposals  to compensate industry.

   Professor Garnaut urges the Government to rethink its position on the 25
per cent target  before next year's Copenhagen climate conference,
especially if the Obama presidency and  China's response bring hope of an
unexpected breakthrough.

   "Australia cannot play a strongly positive role in encouraging the global
community towards  the best possible outcomes if it has ruled out in
advance its own participation in strong  outcomes," he writes.

   He warns that high payments for trade-exposed industries in both Europe
and Australia, and  presumably other countries, justified on the grounds of
the international financial crisis, could  serve to worsen the downturn  as
happened when the US and other countries raised  protection in the 1930s,
deepening the Great Depression.

   Professor Garnaut points to large risks to public finances in the
five-year price cap for  emissions permits and in the issuing of free
permits to trade-exposed emissions-intensive  industries, although he says
the permits are based on sound policy.

   "The problems arise from the absence from the white paper of a sound
conceptual basis for  payments," which has profound consequences, he
writes. "Sound principles would see the  automatic withdrawal of payments
as carbon constraints emerge in other countries.

   "With political bargaining determining payments, as in the white paper,
there is no obvious  point at which payments would be partially or
completely withdrawn." Even if there was an  international agreement that
completely removed the case for payments, five years' notice  would need to
be given for withdrawing them.

   Professor Garnaut said last night the "next reforming Australian
government will have as its  central objective the removal of the
distortions in the ETS' trade-exposed industries".

   He said the scheme would have been better if it had taken on more of his
proposals.

   Supporting the 5 per cent unilateral target, he writes that this is a
challenging target in the  absence of an international agreement. "To go
further would run the risk that Australia's  example of early action would
be negative rather than positive in its influence on others."





-  -  -

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21490.htm



At Last, A  Date

For the first time, the International Energy  Agency has produced a date
for peak oil. And it’s not  reassuring.

By George Monbiot

December 18,  2008 "The Guardian" -- 15th December 2008 -- Can you  think
of a major threat for which the British government does not prepare? It
employs an army of civil servants, spooks and consultants to assess the
chances  of terrorist attacks, financial collapse, floods, epidemics, even
asteroid  strikes, and to work out what it should do if they happen. But
there is one  hazard about which it appears intensely relaxed. It has never
conducted its own  assessment of the state of global oil supplies and the
possibility that one day  they might peak and then go into decline.

If you ask, it always produces  the same response: - global oil resources
are adequate for the foreseeable  future.

(1) It knows this, it says, because of the assessments made by the
International Energy Agency (IEA) in its World Energy Outlook reports. In
the  2007 report, the IEA does appear to support the government's view.
World oil  resources,- it states, -are judged to be sufficient to meet the
projected growth  in demand to 2030 3(2); though it says nothing about what
happens at that point,  or whether they will continue to be sufficient
after 2030. But this, as far as  Whitehall is concerned, is the end of the
matter. Like most of the rich world's  governments, the United Kingdom
treats the IEA's projections as gospel. Earlier  this year, I submitted a
Freedom of Information request to the UK's Department  for Business, asking
what contingency plans the government has made for global  supplies of oil
peaking by 2020. The answer was as follows: "the Government does  not feel
the need to hold contingency plans specifically for the eventuality of
crude oil supplies peaking between now and 2020."(3)

So the IEA had  better bloody well be right. In the report on peak oil
commissioned by the US  Department of Energy, the oil analyst Robert
L.Hirsch concluded that "without  timely mitigation, the economic, social
and political costs - of world oil  supplies peaking - will be
unprecedented."(4) He went on to explain what "timely  mitigation" meant.
Even a worldwide emergency response -10 years before world  oil peaking-,
he wrote, would leave "a liquid fuels shortfall roughly a decade  after the
time that oil would have peaked."(5) To avoid global economic  collapse, we
need to begin "a mitigation crash program 20 years before  peaking."(6) If
Hirsch is right and if oil supplies peak before 2028, we're in  deep doodah.

So burn this into your mind: between 2007 and 2008 the IEA  radically
changed its assessment. Until this year's report, the agency mocked  people
who said that oil supplies might peak. In the foreword to a book it
published in 2005, its executive director, Claude Mandil, dismissed those
who  warned of this event as "doomsayers". "The IEA has long maintained
that none of  this is a cause for concern," he wrote. "Hydrocarbon
resources around the world  are abundant and will easily fuel the world
through its transition to a  sustainable energy future."(7) In its 2007
World Energy Outlook, the IEA  predicted a rate of decline in output from
the world's existing oilfields of  3.7% a year(8). This, it said, presented
a short-term challenge, with the  possibility of a temporary supply crunch
in 2015, but with sufficient investment  any shortfall could be covered.
But the new report, published last month,  carried a very different
message: a projected rate of decline of 6.7%, which  means a much greater
gap to fill(9).

More importantly, in the 2008 report  the IEA suggests for the first time
that world petroleum supplies might hit the  buffers. "Although global oil
production in total is not expected to peak before  2030, production of
conventional oil … is projected to level off towards the end  of the
projection period."(10) These bland words reveal a major shift. Never
before has one of the IEA’s energy outlooks forecast the peaking or
plateauing  of the world's conventional oil production (which is what we
mean when we talk  about peak oil).

But that is as specific as the report gets. Does it or  doesn't it mean
that we have time to prepare? What does "towards the end of the  projection
period" mean? The agency has never produced a more precise forecast -
until now. For the first time, in the interview I conducted with its chief
economist Fatih Birol, it has given us a date. And it should scare the
pants off  anyone who understands the implications.

Fatih Birol, the lead author of  the new energy outlook, is a small,
shrewd, unflustered man with thick grey hair and Alistair Darling eyebrows.
He explained to me that the agency's new  projections were based on a major
study it had undertaken into decline rates in  the world's 800 largest oil
fields. So what were its previous figures based on?  "It was mainly an
assumption, a global assumption about the world's oil fields.  This year,
we looked at it country by country, field by field and we looked at it also
onshore and offshore. It was very very detailed. Last year it was an
assumption, and this year it's a finding of our study." I told him that it
seemed extraordinary to me that the IEA hadn't done this work before, but
had  based its assessment on educated guesswork. "In fact nobody had done
this  research," he told me. "This is the first publicly available
data".(11)

So was it not irresponsible to publish a decline rate of 3.7%  in 2007,
when there was no proper research supporting it? "No, our previous  decline
assumptions have always mentioned that these are assumptions to the best
of our knowledge - and we also said that the declines [could be] higher
than  what we have assumed."

Then I asked him a question for which I didn't  expect a straight answer:
could he give me a precise date by which he expects  conventional oil
supplies to stop growing?

"In terms of non-OPEC  [countries outside the big oil producers’ cartel]",
he replied, "we are  expecting that in three, four years' time the
production of conventional oil  will come to a plateau, and start to
decline. - In terms of the global picture,  assuming that OPEC will invest
in a timely manner, global conventional oil can  still continue, but we
still expect that it will come around 2020 to a plateau  as well, which is
of course not good news from a global oil supply point of  view."

Around 2020. That casts the issue in quite a different light. Mr  Birol's
date, if correct, gives us about 11 years to prepare. If the Hirsch  report
is right, we have already missed the boat. Birol says we need a "global
energy revolution" to avoid an oil crunch, including (disastrously for the
environment) a massive global drive to exploit unconventional oils, such as
the  Canadian tar sands. But nothing on this scale has yet happened, and
Hirsch  suggests that even if it began today, the necessary investments and
infrastructure changes could not be made in time. Fatih Birol told me "I
think  time is not on our side here."

When I pressed him on the shift in the  agency's position, he argued that
the IEA has been saying something like this  all along. "We said in the
past that one day we will run out of oil. We never  said that we will have
hundreds of years of oil - but what we have said is that  this year,
compared to past years, we have seen that the decline rates are
significantly higher than what we have seen before. But our line that we
are on  an unsustainable energy path has not changed".

This of course is face-saving nonsense. There is a vast difference between
a decline rate of 3.7%  and a rate of 6.7%. There is an even bigger
difference between suggesting that  the world is following an unsustainable
energy path – a statement almost  everyone can subscribe to, and revealing
that conventional oil supplies are  likely to plateau around 2020. If this
is what the IEA meant in the past, it  wasn't expressing itself very
clearly.

So what do we do? We could take to  the hills, or we could hope and pray
that Hirsch is wrong about the 20-year lead  time, and begin a global crash
programme today of fuel efficiency and  electrification. In either case,
the British government had better start drawing  up some contingency plans.

www.monbiot.com

References:

1.  Eg DECC Press Office, 28th October 2008. Statement emailed to Duncan
Clark at  the Guardian.

2. International Energy Agency, 2007. World Energy Outlook  2007, page 43.
IEA, Paris.

3. BERR, 8th April 2008. Response to FoI  request, Ref 08/0091.

4. Robert L. Hirsch, Roger Bezdek and Robert  Wendling, February 2005.
Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation,  & Risk Management.
US Department of Energy, page 4.
http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/Oil_Peaking_NETL.pdf

5.  ibid, page 59.

6. ibid, page 65.

7. International Energy Agency,  2005. Resources to Reserves: Oil and Gas
Technologies for the Energy Markets of  the Future, page 3. IEA, Paris.

8. International Energy Agency, 2007,  ibid, page 84.

9. International Energy Agency, 2008. World Energy Outlook  2008, page 43.
IEA, Paris.

10. ibid, p103.

11. This interview is  broadcast on the Guardian's website .
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/video/2008/dec/15/fatih-birol-george-monbi
ot

http://www.theage.com.au/national/garnaut-turns-heat-on-rudd-climate-plan-200812
19-72a7.html?page=-1


   Garnaut turns heat on Rudd climate plan
AAP The Age December 20, 2008 - 7:11PM

   The Federal Government's own climate adviser has savaged parts of its
climate change plan, describing the assistance to big business as "over the
top".

   Professor Ross Garnaut says a massive lobbying exercise by vested
interests,  unprecedented in the history of Australian public policy, has
secured an overly generous deal  for business. He also thinks the
Government should not have ruled out a deep, 25-per cent cut in  emissions
by 2020.

   The Government went for a 5-to-15-per cent cut in its plan for climate
change and emissions  trading released this week.

   Professor Garnaut, who was hired by the federal and state governments to
advise on climate  change, said the scheme gave too much assistance to
industry.
   "I think it's over the top," he said.  "There had been "unprecedented
lobbying from vested interests ... unprecedented in  Australian
policy-making, the extent of it".

   "There's no doubt that the rate of return in lobbying has been very
high," Professor Garnaut  said.

   The final result - in which there are more free permits for more
businesses, plus generous  compensation - concerned him "because it's not
based on clear principle".

   "I think that everyone will start to wonder about the wisdom of how far
it's gone. I think there  are some budget problems ahead."

   Professor Garnaut said that, in general, the white paper was a positive
step forward because  Australia would now start to cut its emissions.

   But in some key areas the paper did not follow the advice he set out in
his report on climate  change, released in September.

   Professor Garnaut stood by his findings.

   "Naturally I think it would have been better from an environmental and an
economic point of  view if we'd ended up closer to my recommendations."

   One issue is the Government's target of reducing emissions by 5 to 15 per
cent by 2020. The  target has been slammed by environmentalists.

   Professor Garnaut stood by his recommendation of a maximum 25-per cent cut.

   "I think it would have been better for Australia's environmental interest
and long-term  economic interest to have kept it on the table," he said.

   "I wouldn't have recommended it unless I thought it was best for Australia.
Mr Rudd's formed a different view".

   "I find it a little bit difficult to understand the advantage to
Australia of cutting off the ambitious  outcome."

   Professor Garnaut also criticised the government's decision to give $3.9
billion in free permits  to coal-fired power stations.

   "I don't think there is any public policy justification at all for this."

   He took aim at Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's decision to effectively exempt
petrol from the  scheme until 2013, saying with oil at $US40 a barrel there
was not an overwhelming case for  exemption.

   And Professor Garnaut stood by his recommendation that a substantial part
of the revenue  earned in emissions trading go towards energy efficiency
programs. The Government did not  take this advice.

   Professor Garnaut said the financial crisis was no excuse to go soft on
climate change.

   "I say (in my report) that the financial crisis shouldn't make any
difference. I stand by that on  policy."

   While Professor Garnaut spoke freely on how the scheme could be improved,
he said he accepted the Government did not have to take all his advice.

   The Government had accepted his advice on some issues, and rejected it on
others, he said.  He did not feel personally disappointed at the end
result.

   "When you've been through as much in life as I have, you roll with the
punches."
   AAP
  __._,

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/rudds-defence-of-target-contains-some-telling-o
missions-20081216-6zwa.html



Rudd's defence of target contains some telling omissions

     * Tim Colebatch
     * December 17, 2008

"AUSTRALIA'S medium-term targets for reducing carbon pollution compare
favourably with those of Š the European Union.

"The EU's 20 per cent target announced over the weekend is equal to a 24
per cent reduction in emissions for each European from 1990 to 2020. Our 5
per cent unconditional target is equal to a 27 per cent reduction in carbon
pollution for each Australian from 2000 to 2020 - and a 34 per cent
reduction for each Australian from 1990.

"This is because Europe's population is not projected to grow between 1990
and 2020. By contrast, Australia's population is projected to grow by 45
per cent. If the Europeans were to adopt the same per capita effort as
Australia is proposing, their cuts would be around 30 per cent by 2020."

- Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, Monday

It's the Rudd Government's favourite line against critics of its 5 per cent
target for emissions cuts: in per capita terms, we're doing more than
Europe is. The PM, Penny Wong and Wayne Swan use it every time.

But there are two things wrong with it. The smaller error is that their
numbers are wrong - all of them!

The larger error is that they tell only a small part of the story, and the
part they don't tell matters more.

First, the numbers. On the Bureau of Statistics' median estimate,
Australia's population is on track to grow by 48 per cent between 1990 and
2020, not 45 - from 17.1 million back then to 25.3 million.

But Europe's population growth has also accelerated as migrants flood in.
Last year it added almost as many people as Australia has in the past
decade. Its population is already 6 per cent bigger than in 1990. Eurostat
projects 9 per cent growth by 2020, but that now looks conservative.

Europe's target in fact implies a cut in per capita emissions of 27 per
cent or more.

That's still less than Australia. But PM, you know something? Australians
now emit 21 and a half times as much greenhouse gas per capita as
Europeans. So it's much easier to cut some of our fat.

In 2006, United Nations figures show, Australians emitted 26.1 tonnes per
head of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides, etc. Europeans emitted
10.4 million tonnes each - two tonnes for every five we emit.

If both achieve their lower 2020 targets, we will still emit almost twice
as much gas per head as Europeans: 16.1 tonnes compared with 8.8 tonnes.

And if we kept on at that rate, by 2050 our emissions per head would be
10.6 tonnes - back where Europe was in 2005.

Take off that halo, PM: it doesn't fit.

12 . The solar wars -- more  hidden handouts for polluters?
Canberra correspondent Bernard Keane writes:



The solar  wars have raged ever since the Budget in May. At stake has
been the Government's  environmental and renewable energy
credibility, the future of one of our key  off-the-shelf renewable
technologies and, maybe more than anything else, the  reputation of
Environment Minister Peter Garrett.

Garrett,  because of his background, entered the first year of
government with absurdly  high expectations and, in failing to live up
to them, is perceived to have been  a failure.

Yesterday  Garrett, along with Penny Wong and Wayne Swan, announced a
new solar program to  replace the current means-tested rebate. Wong and
Swan were there because it  wasn't just another program, it was part
of the Government's Renewable Energy  Target of 20% by 2020.

Media  coverage of the announcement has been rather confused because the
new scheme is  complex. On ABC Breakfast this morning the presenter was
talking about how  terrible it was that the rebate for solar systems had
been slashed while the  ticker along the bottom referred to the removal
of the means test.

In simple  terms, the new scheme replaces a means-tested Government
rebate for low and  middle-income households with the purchase of solar
energy credits by power  companies so that they can count toward the
Renewable Energy Target. Purchasers  of solar systems won't have to
deal directly with power companies, it will be  handled at the point of
sale. The new scheme is not means-tested or limited to  households, but
in the early years, it multiplies the value of the power  generated to
increase the incentive to invest in solar sooner rather than later.  It
also links the amount of power generated to the purchasable credits, so
that  solar systems installed in sunnier locations -- i.e. up north --
generate a  higher return.

The Greens  and the Opposition have criticised the new approach, as has
Greenpeace, which  wanted to see a solar feed-in tariff.

But there  are significant benefits to the new program. It plugs solar
power directly into  the Renewable Energy Target, meaning the solar
industry has an assured growth  trajectory between now and 2020. It also
links credits to actual energy  production, and isn't constrained by
means tests or for domestic use only. It  also takes pressure off the
budget by shifting the cost of renewable to where it  belongs -- power
companies.

This is  important because, in the light of the Government's cop-out
on ETS targets on  Monday, there were real questions about what
incentives there were to drive a  switch to renewable energy. As it
stands, the Renewable Energy Target will be  about the biggest mechanism
to drive a shift to low-carbon energy production.

It  would've been far more effective if the Government had designed
an ETS that  didn't reward polluters but established clear price
signals to shift to  renewables, but for the moment the new scheme is
all we'll have.

In  announcing the scheme, Garrett took the opportunity to point out
that the  now-notorious imposition of a means-test for the current
program in May had,  rather than destroying the solar industry as
predicted, caused it to surge. This  has been a fascinating policy
lesson that will be studied by wonks, academics  and public servants for
years to come. Perhaps because of publicity from a  complaining
industry, the Budget changes caused an explosion in applications for
solar systems, which went from about 370 a week before the Budget to
over a 1000  a week currently.

Far from  killing off the solar industry in one blow, as Malcolm
Turnbull predicted
<http://redirect.cmailer.com.au/LinkRedirector.aspx?clid=6947b7b3-5b2e-4\
def-a5ef-b33105009ea5&rid=0c455ffe-e339-48e4-a9a2-f9cbfb4f04e4> , it
gave it a huge shot in the arm. The program ran  through all its
allocated money so quickly the Government had to inject more  funding to
keep it going.

Just to  show that Garrett can't win, though, today he's been
accused of performing a  backflip because the new RET-linked scheme has
no  means test
<http://redirect.cmailer.com.au/LinkRedirector.aspx?clid=a41d7f0d-7669-4\
6ee-8553-fb63b780a1ae&rid=0c455ffe-e339-48e4-a9a2-f9cbfb4f04e4> .

There's  one worrying aspect of the program announced yesterday,
however. According to  the Government's own commentary on the bill
that will introduce the scheme, "the  treatment of
electricity-intensive, trade-exposed industries under the RET  scheme is
to be considered separately in the context of decisions around the
treatment of emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries under the
Carbon  Pollution Reduction Scheme."

The issue  is the higher electricity costs incurred by trade-exposed
industries as we move  to 20% of energy coming from renewable sources.
Penny Wong is to release a paper  on this issue "before the end of the
year", which gives her eight working days.

The  Australian Conservation Foundation correctly spotted this
reference, and has  expressed concern that it doesn't mean more
handouts to big polluters.

Judging by  the ETS White Paper, that's exactly what it means. All
the likes of the cement  and aluminium industries need to do is bleat
"renewable leakage" and the  Government will, on past form, cave in and
give them a massive free kick.  Trade-exposed industries will benefit
from massive and wholly unwarranted  handouts in the ETS. They should
get absolutely nothing under the Renewable  Energy Target. Don't bet
on Wong's paper saying that, though.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Greens-Media]
Wednesday 17 December 2008

Kicking the renewables sector while it's down: 20% undermined, no
certainty for solar

Just two days after delivering its 'big polluters' bail-out package',
the Rudd Government has announced a deeply flawed renewable energy
target that breaches its election promise and will entrench sector's
boom and bust cycles, the Australian Greens said today.

"After giving big polluters everything they asked for in Monday's white
paper, today the Rudd Government is kicking the renewable energy sector
while it's down," Australian Greens Deputy Leader and Climate Change
Spokesperson, Senator Christine Milne, said.

Today's ill-thought out announcement that solar panels will be given
five renewable energy credits (RECs) for every megawatt hour, while all
other renewable energy sources get only one REC, will fail to provide
the certainty the solar industry needs while undermining the 20%
Renewable Energy Target (RET).

Ongoing uncertainty over price, an absurd seven year phase down and a
senseless size limit means the solar industry will still not be able to
invest in Australia with any confidence.

Meanwhile, the fact that each megawatt hour of solar power will take up
the space of five megawatt hours in the scheme means the 20% target will
now deliver even less renewable energy into the grid than it should.

"Mr Rudd, why won't you listen to the solar industry like you listen to
the coal industry?" Senator Milne asked.

"The renewable energy sector is united behind the need for a price
guarantee scheme - known as a feed-in tariff - which has delivered
tremendous growth in jobs and investment everywhere it has been
introduced around the world.

"The evidence is crystal clear that a feed-in tariff scheme is the best
policy setting to supplement a strong renewable energy target. It gives
the industry the long-term certainty it needs to invest in creating
green-collar jobs and delivering a boom in zero emissions energy.

"The Rudd Government refused to support my Private Member's Bill for a
feed-in tariff in large part because it did not want to see the cost of
renewable energy shared by all electricity users. But today's scheme has
an identical funding mechanism - it will have the same impact on
electricity bills for less benefit. This is senseless.

"It has taken a year and embarrassment by the Greens in introducing
amendments to fulfil this election promise, and still the Rudd
Government produces a deeply flawed plan.

"This is yet another example of senseless policy on the run from the
Rudd Government.

"Mr Rudd and his Ministers need to take a good holiday break to think
seriously about their approach to climate change and return in 2009 with
a New Year's Resolution to follow expert advice instead of polluter
lobbying."

Tim Hollo
Media and Communications Adviser
Senator Christine Milne
Australian Greens Deputy Leader
ph: (02) 6277 3588
mob: 0437 587 562
Come join the conversation at GreensBlog <http://greensmps.org.au/blog>
----------------------------------------------

16th December 2008

Rudd: the devil in climate change hell

With his self-groomed halo tarnished forever more, Rudd has revealed
himself to be the devil in the detail when it comes to climate change,
after the Federal Government announced it would only set a 5% emissions
reduction target yesterday.

"This is significant step towards Federal Labor exposing themselves
as being more closely intertwined with their colleagues in NSW than they
would like to admit," says Greens MP Ian Cohen.

"For a government that was swept to power with all the grandiose
climate change promises it could muster, this paltry 5% target will
certainly prove to be lump of coal in the throats of most
Australians."

The White Paper, `Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme: Australia's Low
Pollution Future', released by Prime Minister Rudd yesterday, has
revealed a government more concerned with appeasing big polluters than
shoring up new and emerging renewable energy industries, as the $4
billion promised to the coal industry demonstrates.

"Australia is at the forefront of some of the most innovative and
exciting technologies in the world when it comes to renewable energy.
Sadly, many have been moving offshore for commercialisation because they
find it so hard to get started in our own backyard. We need to be moving
Australia into a high skills, sustainable energy based economy, not
shoring up the Jurassic interests of only a few"

"Just how much of the coal cabal's $4 billion bonanza will actually
translate to real emissions cuts? According to the McKinsey Australian
2020 carbon abatement cost curve emission reductions to be gained from
residential water heating efficiency, commercial lighting efficiency and
residential heating/ventilation efficiency are the low hanging fruit
that the Rudd Government is ignoring.

"Just look at the Sydney CBD at night. All too often whole office
buildings are lit up for no good reason - even on weekends."

"What is also glaringly absent from the Rudd White Paper is an
acknowledgement of the role of forestry in Australia's abatement
portfolio. The forestry industry makes up 31% of Australia's GHG
emission reduction opportunity yet Rudd has turned a blindeye,
preferring to bankrole a handsome corporate welfare package."
-------------------------------------------------------------

17 December 2008

Chikarovski mine report will pull plug on Central Coast water catchments

Greens MP and mining spokesperson Lee Rhiannon called on Planning
Minister Kristina Keneally to ignore the findings of the Chikarovski
Report into underground mining in the Central Coast, released today.

"The findings of the Chikarovski Report are skewed in favour of the
coal industry at the expense of the Central Coasts major water
catchment", said Ms Rhiannon.

"The report brushes aside community concerns and paves the way for the
controversial Kores long wall coal mine, Wallarah 2, to go ahead.

"The proposed underground mine panels for Wallarah 2 coal mine would
be only 154m from the Wyong River at some points and would impact
aquifers beneath the Yarramalong and Dooralong valleys.

"This project could pull the plug on a major source of the Central
Coast regions water supply. The Yarramalong and Dooralong Valleys
supply 35 40% of the Central Coasts drinking water.

"The report admits that there is a lack of monitoring of aquifer
status, lack of metering of groundwater use, absence of groundwater
sharing plans and lack of government investment in groundwater
management at the proposed site of the Wallarah 2 mine.

"The Chikarovski Report is as useful as a blindfold in helping the
government to assess whether the Wallarah 2 mine should go ahead.

"The Greens call on the government to withhold any decision on the
Wallarah 2 mine until there is sufficient information about
groundwater in the area.

"Subsidence and cracked river beds caused by longwall coal mining in
the Illawarra have drained water from rivers and aquifers.

"This Inquiry is the latest in a series of costly and lengthy
inquiries commissioned by the NSW government that are weighted in
favour of the coal industry.

"Two of the four mining experts appointed to the panel of this inquiry
have associations with the mining industry.

"The Greens will continue to work with local residents to oppose the
proposed Wallarah 2 mine and protect the water catchments of the
Central Coast", said Ms Rhiannon

For more information: 9230 3551, 0427 861 568
Lee Rhiannon, MLC
The Greens
Parliament of New South Wales
Macquarie St
Sydney 2000
Tel: +61-2-9230 3551
Fax: +61-2-9230 3550
lee.rhiannon@...
http://www.lee.greens.org.au/
http://www.democracy4sale.org/
------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday 17 December 2008


Log trucks will stop nation - Brown

The nationwide coverage of the massive log truck line up at Triabunna
yesterday will hasten the end of native forest destruction in Tasmania,
Greens Leader Bob Brown said today.

Congratulating the peaceful forest defenders who protested at Gunns
woodchip mill, Senator Brown said that in terms of wildlife and
Tasmania's natural beauty, the picture represented the axels of evil.

"This image of stopped log trucks will also stop the nation in its
tracks.
Beyond wildlife, water purity and intact ecosystems, the trucks
represent thousands of tonnes of greenhouse gas pollution for no better
reason than making wrapping paper in Japan," Senator Brown said.



Further information:  Ebony Bennett 0409 164 603
Media Advisor
Senator Bob Brown | Leader of the Australian Greens
e: ebony.bennett@...
m: 0409 164 603 | p: (02) 6277 3170 | f: (02) 6277 3185
w: www.bobbrown.org.au <http://www.bobbrown.org.au/>

The following Declaration was prepared by a committee elected for this
purpose at the Paris Ecosocialist Conference of 2007 (Ian Angus, Joel
Kovel, Michael Löwy), with the help of Danielle Follett. It will be
distributed at the World Social Forum in Belem, Brazil, in January 2009.

To add your name to the list of signatories who support the analysis and
political perspectives set forth in this statement, email your name and
country of residence to ecosocialism@...
<mailto:ecosocialism@...?subject=Add%20my%20Signature%20to%20Belem%20Decla\
ration>,

<mailto:ecosocialism@...?subject=Add%20my%20Signature%20to%20Belem%20Decla\
ration>

------------------------------------------------------------------------


   The Belem Ecosocialist Declaration

"The world is suffering from a fever due to climate change,
and the disease is the capitalist development model."
-- Evo Morales, president of Bolivia, September 2007

Humanity's choice

Humanity today faces a stark choice: ecosocialism or barbarism.

We need no more proof of the barbarity of capitalism, the parasitical
system that exploits humanity and nature alike. Its sole motor is the
imperative toward profit and thus the need for constant growth. It
wastefully creates unnecessary products, squandering the environment's
limited resources and returning to it only toxins and pollutants. Under
capitalism, the only measure of success is how much more is sold every
day, every week, every year - involving the creation of vast quantities
of products that are directly harmful to both humans and nature,
commodities that cannot be produced without spreading disease,
destroying the forests that produce the oxygen we breathe, demolishing
ecosystems, and treating our water, air and soil like sewers for the
disposal of industrial waste.

Capitalism's need for growth exists on every level, from the individual
enterprise to the system as a whole. The insatiable hunger of
corporations is facilitated by imperialist expansion in search of ever
greater access to natural resources, cheap labor and new markets.
Capitalism has always been ecologically destructive, but in our
lifetimes these assaults on the earth have accelerated. Quantitative
change is giving way to qualitative transformation, bringing the world
to a tipping point, to the edge of disaster. A growing body of
scientific research has identified many ways in which small temperature
increases could trigger irreversible, runaway effects - such as rapid
melting of the Greenland ice sheet or the release of methane buried in
permafrost and beneath the ocean - that would make catastrophic climate
change inevitable.

Left unchecked, global warming will have devastating effects on human,
animal and plant life. Crop yields will drop drastically, leading to
famine on a broad scale. Hundreds of millions of people will be
displaced by droughts in some areas and by rising ocean levels in
others. Chaotic, unpredictable weather will become the norm. Air, water
and soil will be poisoned. Epidemics of malaria, cholera and even
deadlier diseases will hit the poorest and most vulnerable members of
every society.

The impact of the ecological crisis is felt most severely by those whose
lives have already been ravaged by imperialism in Asia, Africa, and
Latin America, and indigenous peoples everywhere are especially
vulnerable. Environmental destruction and climate change constitute an
act of aggression by the rich against the poor.

Ecological devastation, resulting from the insatiable need to increase
profits, is not an accidental feature of capitalism: it is built into
the system's DNA and cannot be reformed away. Profit-oriented production
only considers a short-term horizon in its investment decisions, and
cannot take into account the long-term health and stability of the
environment. Infinite economic expansion is incompatible with finite and
fragile ecosystems, but the capitalist economic system cannot tolerate
limits on growth; its constant need to expand will subvert any limits
that might be imposed in the name of "sustainable development." Thus the
inherently unstable capitalist system cannot regulate its own activity,
much less overcome the crises caused by its chaotic and parasitical
growth, because to do so would require setting limits upon accumulation
- an unacceptable option for a system predicated upon the rule: Grow or Die!

If capitalism remains the dominant social order, the best we can expect
is unbearable climate conditions, an intensification of social crises
and the spread of the most barbaric forms of class rule, as the
imperialist powers fight among themselves and with the global south for
continued control of the world's diminishing resources.

At worst, human life may not survive.

Continue reading at http://links.org.au/node/803



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Until now all the proposals and/or agreements for addressing GHG
induced GW/CC have advised reducing CO2 emissions by X% of 1990 levels
by the year 20whatever. But Mr KRudd's proposal is a 5% CO2 reduction
of 2000 levels.
If CO2 emission levels only rose 1% per year between 1990 and 2000, a
5% reduction on 2000 levels equals a 5% increase on 1990 levels.
I'm led to believe CO2 emissions are currently growing by 2% per year
globally.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

  [Greens-Media]

Canberra, Tuesday 16 December 2008

Obama chooses Chu: US will rapidly overtake Australia

The Australian Greens today welcomed US President-elect Obama's choice
of energy efficiency expert Dr Steven Chu as his energy secretary.

The choice of Nobel Prize winning Dr Chu will help to ensure that the
USA moves rapidly into a Green New Deal that build jobs and prosperity
through energy efficiency and renewable energy. It will dramatically
increase the pressure on Australia to follow suit.

"Dr Chu is an inspired choice who will drive the transformation in the
American economy that the Rudd Government completely failed to deliver
yesterday," Australian Greens Deputy Leader and Climate Change
Spokesperson, Senator Christine Milne, said.

"Dr Chu is a Nobel Prize winning expert in energy efficiency who is
opposed to nuclear power and deeply sceptical of coal's ability to clean
up its act.

"He will champion Mr Obama's commitment to build millions of new jobs in
the clean-tech renewable energy and energy efficiency industries that
will not only lift America out of recession but simultaneously create a
new, green economy.

"If the Rudd Government yesterday could not see the writing on the wall
for its coal obsession, today that writing has become even clearer.

"Australia needs to get with the Green New Deal, ride the wave of
change, or be swamped by it."

Tim Hollo
Media and Communications Adviser
Senator Christine Milne
Australian Greens Deputy Leader
ph: (02) 6277 3588
mob: 0437 587 562
Come join the conversation at GreensBlog <http://greensmps.org.au/blog>
-----------------------------------------------------------

Canberra, Tuesday 16 December 2008

Greens to initiate Senate Inquiry into inadequacy of 5% target

The Australian Greens today released draft terms of reference for a
Senate Inquiry into the 5% emissions reduction target announced by Prime
Minister Rudd yesterday.

The Inquiry, to be moved in the first sitting week of the new year, will
examine the scientific adequacy of the 5% target in avoiding
catastrophic climate change of more than 2 degrees warming, and whether
the target does enough to play a fair and responsible part in global
climate action.

"The Rudd Government has chosen to make one of the most important
decisions it will ever make on the basis of lobbying by polluters
instead on the clear evidence," Australian Greens Deputy Leader and
Climate Change Spokesperson, Senator Christine Milne, said.

"It is vital that the Senate scrutinises this target on behalf of all
Australians, examining how it stands up on the key questions of
scientific adequacy and global fairness.

"Our hope it that this Inquiry will give scientists from across
Australia and around the world the opportunity to advise on how much
Australia will need to do to prevent catastrophic, runaway climate
change."

Terms of reference: To inquire into and make recommendations upon:
1.    The adequacy or otherwise of the Government's greenhouse gas
emission reduction target of 5 per cent by 2020 and 60 per cent by 2050
below 2000 levels in avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference with
the climate, defined as a global temperature rise of more than 2
degrees.
2.    Whether or not, if the global community pursues a 550 ppm target
until 2020, there is any prospect of achieving a 450 ppm target - ie is
an "overshoot" emission trajectory realistic and what are the risks
involved?
3.    Whether or not, if the global community pursues a 550 ppm
target, the Government's greenhouse emission reduction targets of 5 per
cent by 2020 and 60 per cent by 2050 below 2000 levels constitutes a
fair and proportionate contribution the global abatement task.
4.    What emission targets would be consistent with a achieving a 350
ppm and a 400 ppm atmospheric concentration target, equitably shared
between (a) industrial and developing nations, and (b) between
industrialised nations?
5.    The debate into global negotiations to date on per capita
emission targets and whether or not the Government's arguments on per
capita emissions are consistent with globally understood principles of
equity underpinning burden sharing arrangements.

Senator Milne said "The Greens believe that, for Australia to play a
fair and responsible role in the global climate effort, we will need to
be carbon neutral by 2050,* with at least 40% cuts below 1990 levels by
2020. This is both achievable and necessary."

*Countries committed to carbon neutrality include New Zealand, Iceland,
Costa Rica, Niue and Norway.

Tim Hollo
Media and Communications Adviser
Senator Christine Milne
Australian Greens Deputy Leader
ph: (02) 6277 3588
mob: 0437 587 562
Come join the conversation at GreensBlog <http://greensmps.org.au/blog>
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Tuesday, 16 December 2008

Rudd ignores forest 'elephant'

The Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has ignored the 20% or so of Australia's
greenhouse emissions coming from logging and clearance of forests and
woodlands as a huge low-cost opportunity to address climate change,
Australian Greens Leader Bob Brown said today.

"Logging, from the Tiwi Islands to Tasmania, is not needed for domestic
wood needs as Australia has more than 1.5 million hectares of
to-be-logged plantations for its paper and structural timber market,"
Senator Brown said.

"The $20 billion the Rudd government has allocated for a 4% reduction in
2020 greenhouse gas emissions over 1990 levels could have far greater
benefit in terms of reducing greenhouse has emissions if put to
restructuring the logging industry, and ending land clearance, rather
than featherbedding the coal and allied industries.

"This morning, the forest defenders group 'Still Wild Still Threatened'
closed the operations of Gunns' export woodchip mill at Triabunna in
Tasmania.

"Logging and burning of forests is Tasmania's biggest greenhouse gas
emitter - bigger than all the states' transport systems put together.

"Worse still, it is largely going to Japan for wrapping paper which ends
up on rotting rubbish tips as greenhouse gases," Senator Brown said.

"Logging is an elephant in the Prime Minister's room," Senator Brown
said.

Further information: Ebony Bennett 0409 164 603
Media Advisor
Senator Bob Brown | Leader of the Australian Greens
e: ebony.bennett@...
m: 0409 164 603 | p: (02) 6277 3170 | f: (02) 6277 3185
w: www.bobbrown.org.au <http://www.bobbrown.org.au/>
---------------------------------------------------------------

Media Release: 15 December 2008

Rudd's white paper is free kick to NSW's big polluters

NSW's coal-fired power stations and its two aluminium smelters are big
winners in the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme White Paper while the
state's renewable energy industry has suffered a major setback,
according to Greens NSW MP John Kaye.

Dr Kaye said: "The federal government plans to hand over 50 percent of
the money raised from selling permits to the big polluters.

"Kevin Rudd wants to give free permits to NSW's coal burning power
stations that are responsible for 37 per cent of the state's
greenhouse gas emissions.

"He is effectively removing the need to transform this state's
electricity industry.

"Apart from rewarding and encouraging polluting behaviour, the
so-called 'assistance' is designed to prop up the asset value of the
generators and  make them more attractive for full or partial
privatisation.

"The White paper is also a gift to Australia's aluminium industry
which uses massive amounts of electricity from coal-fired generators.

"Even though each tonne of aluminium smelted in Australia produces 16
times more greenhouse gases than if it were manufactured in South
America, the operators will be given permits to cover 90 percent of
their emissions.

"NSW's two aluminium smelters will receive an annual subsidy of more
than $180,000 for each employee, even at the low carbon price of
$23/tonne CO2.

"This is money that would be much better invested in developing a
renewable energy industry, which could create up to 73,800 new jobs.

"Kevin Rudd's White paper robs from the average households to give
massive advantages to the big polluters. It hobbles the future of this
state's renewable energy industry and it's a gift to the Rees'
government's electricity privatisation agenda," Dr Kaye said.

Media alert: Greens members and supporters are rallying to protest the
5% target and the free kick to big polluters:

     11:00 am Tuesday 16 December
     Commonwealth Government Offices, 70 Phillip Street, Sydney

For more information: John Kaye 0407 195 455
Greens member of the NSW Parliament
phone: (02) 9230 2668
fax: (02) 9230 2586
mobile: 0407 195 455
email: john.kaye@...
web: www.johnkaye.org.au

mail: Parliament House, Macquarie St, Sydney NSW 2000

It would be nice if they'd link up with the Australian Youth Climate Coalition
on these actions!!  Ah well, green groups seldom work together ....

H


[Greens-Media]
Monday, 15 December 2008

Greens announce national day of action tomorrow, amidst public outcry at
5% target

Australian Greens Deputy Leader and climate change spokesperson, Senator
Christine Milne, said Prime Minister Rudd's dangerous 5% emissions
reduction target had sparked disbelief and outrage from the community.

"My office has been inundated with phone calls and emails from
Australians who are disappointed and angry at Prime Minister Rudd's 5%
target and want to know what they can do to fix it," Senator Milne said.

"I invite anyone who wants to send a message to the Rudd government that
Australians won't surrender to climate change, and that 5% isn't good
enough, to join me on the lawns of Parliament House in Canberra
tomorrow, along with my ACT Greens MLA Shane Rattenbury," Senator Milne
said.

Senator Milne said Greens were organising protests across in most
capital cities and that details were available on the Greens website
www.greensmps.org.au

NSW
11AM - Commonwealth Government Offices, 70 Phillip St, Sydney
Contact John Kaye (02) 9230 2668

Victoria
12PM - Cnr of Collins, Spring and MacArthur Sts, Melbourne
Contact Alison 0402 075 306 or pc@... Vic Facebook Event

ACT
12.30PM - Parliament House, Canberra
Contact Simon on 62476305 or office@...

SA
11AM - SA Parliament House, North Terrace, Adelaide
Contact Tammy (08) 8212 4888 or tammy@...

TAS
12.30pm - Tasmanian Parliament House Lawns
Contact Karen 03 6236 9334 or 0417 555 309 or
networker@...

WA
12PM - Wesley Church, cnr Hay & William Sts, Perth
Contact Rachel 08 9225 5799 or rachel.pemberton@...

Tim Hollo
Media and Communications Adviser
Senator Christine Milne
Australian Greens Deputy Leader
ph: (02) 6277 3588
mob: 0437 587 562
Come join the conversation at GreensBlog <http://greensmps.org.au/blog>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------

15 December 2008

CORPORATE WELFARE PAYMENTS FOR CARBON POLLUTERS

The
bigger and dirtier you are the more you get paid under the Federal
Government's emissions trading arrangements, says Greens (WA) Energy
spokesperson Paul Llewellyn MLC.

"The Government's 'free permits to polluters' policy will be a windfall for
WA's biggest polluters", Mr Llewellyn said.

"It
looks like Griffin Energy's Bluewater coal-fired power station, due to
open next year, will be bailed out with around $45m in free permits
over the next five years.  This is in spite of the company knowing full
well of the risk of being made to pay for its pollution.

"Now it looks like taxpayers pay them to pollute.

"This is only one of a number of corporate polluters who will have their
hands out for free permits to pollute.

"This
is a shameful waste of money which should be spent supporting clean
energy generation from wind, sun, wave and bio-energy," said Mr
Llewellyn.


For more information contact Paul Llewellyn on 0428 317 182 or 9848 1555
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------

Monday, 15 December 2008

Rudd raises white flag of surrender on climate change

Greens campaign for 40% target

The Australian Greens will campaign for a 40 per cent cut in greenhouse
gas emissions by 2020 to save the planet from catastrophic climate
change.

"Prime Minister Rudd's 5% target is a global embarrassment and a recipe
for global catastrophe," Australian Greens Leader Bob Brown said today.

"The Rudd target of 5 per cent will anger voters. It is exactly where
John Howard would have placed Australia in 2009 - a spoiler as the
Copenhagen conference on climate change reaches for a much higher goal,"
Australian Greens Leader Bob Brown said today.

"Kevin Rudd has made climate change the big parliamentary challenge of
2009. The Greens will initiate a Senate inquiry. If the Opposition
remains coal-captured the question is: will the government accept the
Greens' amendments to improve its climate change legislation?" Senator
Brown asked.

Greens Deputy Leader and Climate Change spokesperson Christine Milne
said today said, "Kevin Rudd's White Paper has raised the white flag of
surrender on climate change."

"Scientists agree that developed countries need to reduce their
emissions by between 25 and 40 per cent by 2020 to avoid catastrophic
climate change. Australia's high per capita emissions and our relatively
cheap emissions reduction potential means we need to be at the top of
that range, not doing less than everyone else.

"Only three per cent of funds will actually go to reducing emissions.
Half of all the money raised by auctioning permits will go to big
polluters. Not a single cent will be spent on helping householders
reduce their energy use and emissions.

"If polluters aren't paying somebody else has to; Kevin Rudd has ensured
that the Australian people will foot the bill for the big polluters,"
Senator Milne said.

"Kevin Rudd has put the coal industry ahead of Australia's children and
grandchildren. It will be much more expensive to rectify this historic
mistake in the decades ahead. The 2010 federal election is shaping up as
a referendum on tackling climate change," Senator Milne said.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Ebony Bennett
Media Advisor
Senator Bob Brown | Leader of the Australian Greens
e: ebony.bennett@...
m: 0409 164 603 | p: (02) 6277 3170 | f: (02) 6277 3185
w: www.bobbrown.org.au <http://www.bobbrown.org.au/>

[Greens-Media]
Monday, 15 December 2008

Greens announce national day of action tomorrow, amidst public outcry at
5% target

Australian Greens Deputy Leader and climate change spokesperson, Senator
Christine Milne, said Prime Minister Rudd's dangerous 5% emissions
reduction target had sparked disbelief and outrage from the community.

"My office has been inundated with phone calls and emails from
Australians who are disappointed and angry at Prime Minister Rudd's 5%
target and want to know what they can do to fix it," Senator Milne said.

"I invite anyone who wants to send a message to the Rudd government that
Australians won't surrender to climate change, and that 5% isn't good
enough, to join me on the lawns of Parliament House in Canberra
tomorrow, along with my ACT Greens MLA Shane Rattenbury," Senator Milne
said.

Senator Milne said Greens were organising protests across in most
capital cities and that details were available on the Greens website
www.greensmps.org.au

NSW
11AM - Commonwealth Government Offices, 70 Phillip St, Sydney
Contact John Kaye (02) 9230 2668

Victoria
12PM - Cnr of Collins, Spring and MacArthur Sts, Melbourne
Contact Alison 0402 075 306 or pc@... Vic Facebook Event

ACT
12.30PM - Parliament House, Canberra
Contact Simon on 62476305 or office@...

SA
11AM - SA Parliament House, North Terrace, Adelaide
Contact Tammy (08) 8212 4888 or tammy@...

TAS
12.30pm - Tasmanian Parliament House Lawns
Contact Karen 03 6236 9334 or 0417 555 309 or
networker@...

WA
12PM - Wesley Church, cnr Hay & William Sts, Perth
Contact Rachel 08 9225 5799 or rachel.pemberton@...

Tim Hollo
Media and Communications Adviser
Senator Christine Milne
Australian Greens Deputy Leader
ph: (02) 6277 3588
mob: 0437 587 562
Come join the conversation at GreensBlog <http://greensmps.org.au/blog>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\
-------------------------------------------

15 December 2008

CORPORATE WELFARE PAYMENTS FOR CARBON POLLUTERS

The
bigger and dirtier you are the more you get paid under the Federal
Government's emissions trading arrangements, says Greens (WA) Energy
spokesperson Paul Llewellyn MLC.

"The Government's 'free permits to polluters' policy will be a windfall for WA's
biggest polluters", Mr Llewellyn said.

"It
looks like Griffin Energy's Bluewater coal-fired power station, due to
open next year, will be bailed out with around $45m in free permits
over the next five years.  This is in spite of the company knowing full
well of the risk of being made to pay for its pollution.

"Now it looks like taxpayers pay them to pollute.

"This is only one of a number of corporate polluters who will have their hands
out for free permits to pollute.

"This
is a shameful waste of money which should be spent supporting clean
energy generation from wind, sun, wave and bio-energy," said Mr
Llewellyn.


For more information contact Paul Llewellyn on 0428 317 182 or 9848 1555
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\
--------------------------------------

Monday, 15 December 2008

Rudd raises white flag of surrender on climate change

Greens campaign for 40% target

The Australian Greens will campaign for a 40 per cent cut in greenhouse
gas emissions by 2020 to save the planet from catastrophic climate
change.

"Prime Minister Rudd's 5% target is a global embarrassment and a recipe
for global catastrophe," Australian Greens Leader Bob Brown said today.

"The Rudd target of 5 per cent will anger voters. It is exactly where
John Howard would have placed Australia in 2009 - a spoiler as the
Copenhagen conference on climate change reaches for a much higher goal,"
Australian Greens Leader Bob Brown said today.

"Kevin Rudd has made climate change the big parliamentary challenge of
2009. The Greens will initiate a Senate inquiry. If the Opposition
remains coal-captured the question is: will the government accept the
Greens' amendments to improve its climate change legislation?" Senator
Brown asked.

Greens Deputy Leader and Climate Change spokesperson Christine Milne
said today said, "Kevin Rudd's White Paper has raised the white flag of
surrender on climate change."

"Scientists agree that developed countries need to reduce their
emissions by between 25 and 40 per cent by 2020 to avoid catastrophic
climate change. Australia's high per capita emissions and our relatively
cheap emissions reduction potential means we need to be at the top of
that range, not doing less than everyone else.

"Only three per cent of funds will actually go to reducing emissions.
Half of all the money raised by auctioning permits will go to big
polluters. Not a single cent will be spent on helping householders
reduce their energy use and emissions.

"If polluters aren't paying somebody else has to; Kevin Rudd has ensured
that the Australian people will foot the bill for the big polluters,"
Senator Milne said.

"Kevin Rudd has put the coal industry ahead of Australia's children and
grandchildren. It will be much more expensive to rectify this historic
mistake in the decades ahead. The 2010 federal election is shaping up as
a referendum on tackling climate change," Senator Milne said.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Ebony Bennett
Media Advisor
Senator Bob Brown | Leader of the Australian Greens
e: ebony.bennett@...
m: 0409 164 603 | p: (02) 6277 3170 | f: (02) 6277 3185
w: www.bobbrown.org.au <http://www.bobbrown.org.au/>








________________________________



From: hugh spencer <Hugh@...>
To: ClimateChangeLinkage@yahoogroups.com
Cc: ClimateChangeAction@...;
ClimateChangeLinkage@yahoogroups.com; climateemergencynetwork@yahoogroups.com;
roeoz@yahoogroups.com; oz-envirolink@...; Steve Ryan
<campaign@...>; cairns-coev@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 15 December, 2008 6:44:47 PM
Subject: [ClimateChangeAction] Rudd Has Betrayed A Generation


http://newmatilda. com/2008/ 12/15/rudd- has-betrayed- generation

Rudd Has Betrayed A Generation
By Anna Rose
The New Matilda
15 Dec 2008

Anna Rose reports from inside the emissions trading scheme lock-up in Canberra

At a high school swimming carnival I once dived really badly off the blocks
and, in mid-air, realised that I'd screwed it up; that I'd blown the one
chance I had to get a head-start in the pool. I have that same feeling
right now. The Rudd Government has just blown Australia's chance - the
small window of opportunity we had - to avert catastrophic climate change.

I'm writing this from the White Paper "lock-up", where the Government gives
non-government organisations and business lobbyists an advance copy of the
White Paper on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Blair Comley from the
Department of Climate Change just gave his speech summarising the scheme's
key design elements.

This White Paper is, in the words of one of Australia's top commentators on
climate change, "totally f*cked".

The target is, as we expected, a "gateway" of 5 to 15 per cent by 2020 -
although in reality it is a commitment to the bottom end of that range. So
while the rest of the world is committing to carbon cuts of between 20 and
40 per cent, Australia is lagging behind at just 5 per cent.

There exists a remarkable disjuncture between the first sentence of the
Executive Summary:

- "The Australian Government believes that acting on climate change is
essential" - and the rest of the White Paper. They can believe it all they
like, but they are certainly not acting on that belief.

It's a sunny day outside in Canberra. We're in Hotel Realm, where I've been
before for the "consultations" in the lead up to this announcement. You can
normally see the gardens outside, but for some reason, thick black curtains
cover the windows today. There's a steady buzz of conversation. A small
corner of the room, where I'm sitting, is filled with climate change and
environment and public benefit organisations. The rest is made up of
industry representatives and business lobbyists in suits. I'm definitely
the only person here under 26 - except for the kid collecting muffin
wrappers and used teacups from the tables, who looks about 16. I wonder if
he realises how his future is going to be affected by the document in front
of me.

I've never been to a lock-up before, and it's a strange feeling. It
actually feels a lot like doing my HSC again; we had to hand in our phones
and blackberries at the door, and sign a form saying our laptops didn't
have wireless enabled.

The Paper itself is 850 pages long, and every page seems to have something
absolutely awful on it. I can't quite bring myself to fully comprehend all
the gory details; it's not just the target but also the scheme design that
has been so severely compromised here.

Here's a wrap:

Targets

The Government's stated target "gateway" is 5 to 15 per cent below 2000
levels by 2020.

However, reading the White Paper, and the explanations given here by the
Department of Climate Change, it is very clear that this actually means a 5
per cent target, because that is what they are basing the carbon price ($25
per tonne) and revenue estimates on.

We had hoped that the Government would say that it was going to leave in
the possibility of a 25 per cent cut if the rest of the world agreed to a
strong global deal in Copenhagen - and even this would be very weak - but
they have decided to leave it off the table altogether.

Instead, there's a line that should a global deal based on stabilising
emissions at 450 parts per million emerge, the Government would set
Australia's post-2020 targets to ensure we play our part in achieving that
goal. Well, by 2020 it may well be too late, because significant emission
reductions need to be made in the next four to 10 years to avoid dangerous
climate "tipping points" that could see climate change spiral out of
control.

The Government has admitted that the economic impact of such weak targets
is absolutely minimal: Gross national product per person is projected to be
between 20 and 21 per cent higher than 2005 levels in 2020 as a result of
this scheme, compared to 22 per cent higher without emissions trading. This
is equivalent to waiting four months longer to achieve the same levels of
growth.

Trade-Exposed Industries

Emissions Intensive Trade-Exposed Industries get a very sweet deal out of
this White Paper.

In fact they will actually be profiting from the scheme. Why? Because they
receive huge amounts of "compensation" (also known as hush money and free
permits) from the Government, and their carbon pollution permits are tax
deductible. That means although they have to buy their emission permits
up-front, they'll get a huge reduction in their tax. This scheme actually
costs the Government money.

In addition, there's the issue of free permits. The most polluting
businesses get 90 per cent of their emission permits for free. The second
most polluting businesses get 60 per cent of their permits for free. This
is like giving smokers free cigarettes while asking them to quit. The
duration and amount of free permits is tied to the amount of polluting that
the companies do
rather than how efficient they become. This means there is a perverse
incentive for companies to actually increase their pollution rather than
become more efficient, because they'll get more free permits the more they
pollute.

As you might expect, the business representatives and industry lobbyists in
this room are looking upbeat. I'm stunned by the extent of their victory
today. It's at moments like this that you're reminded that the Earth isn't
dying, it is being deliberately destroyed, and the people destroying it
have names and addresses, wear suits - and many are in this room with me.
It makes me feel sick.

I suppose I knew this was coming - we'd all seen the leaks in the media -
but when we found out last night that Kevin Rudd would be making the
announcement instead of Penny Wong, I had a last-minute flutter of hope.
Maybe he's changed his mind, I thought. Maybe his kids had implored, "Dad,
what are you doing?"

But now, I just feel exhausted. I put so much of my life into this process
- submissions, consultations, campaigning, media and trying to explain what
it meant to thousands of young people. And now I feel so sad, like Kevin
Rudd has just betrayed our entire generation.

So many people - especially young people - voted for him because of his
election promise to take strong action on climate change. He was elected
with a mandate to take courageous and bold action to cut Australia's
emissions and play an international role of leadership.

Today he has rejected that mandate; thrown it back in our faces.

------------
This message has been posted to the Greenleap List by:
Philip Sutton
Greenleap List Manager




       Start your day with Yahoo!7 and win a Sony Bravia TV. Enter now
http://au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset/?p1=other&p2=au&p3=tagline

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]