AVAAZ Petiton to save Australia's Media from "Big Mining" monopoly

SIGN HERE --> https://secure.avaaz.org/en/stop_ginas_mining_media/?abQdKcb
(Via Avaaz)

Mining magnate Gina Rinehart has just bought a major stake in Fairfax media --
in a bid that could turn The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald into mouthpieces
for climate denial to protect her mining interests. But together we can foil her
plan.

Rinehart has already bought Channel Ten's agenda -- and Australia's ownership
restrictions need urgent reform to end her latest assault on Fairfax. The media
inquiry that Avaaz members helped win is just weeks away from reporting, and
provides the government with the crucial chance to act. Communications Minister
Stephen Conroy is supportive of stronger ownership limits -- but he needs a
community outcry to get the whole government on board.

Sign the petition to Minister Conroy now to ensure a mogul-free Australian
media. When the petition reaches 50,000 signatures, we'll spectacularly deliver
the massive message in Canberra.
SIGN HERE: https://secure.avaaz.org/en/stop_ginas_mining_media/?abQdKcb

See also GetUp YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX2kMAfJggU&feature=player_embedded#!

Apparently Gina Rinehart funds "Lord" Muncktons visits to Australia...
two influential pieces in the mass media mind monopoly jig saw puzzle.

Despite a more than usually horrendous workload, I squeezed in the time to put
out the next issue of Bobbing Around. This is because a number of organisations
I belong to or support have the need to reach out to people as soon as possible.

Please read what they have to say, and help out of that's possible for you.

However, you will find lots of other articles of interest. Please see for
yourself at http://mudsmith.net/bobbing11-5.html

:)
Bob



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

Julien Vincent (a Climate and Energy Campaigner at Greenpeace Australia)
has an article on New Matilda about Federal Labor's appalling
support for the HRL dirty energy power plant  for Victoria while
removing support for a major solar proposal (see "Double standards
for solar and coal":
http://newmatilda.com/2012/02/14/double-standards-solar-and-coal#comment\
-38494
<http://newmatilda.com/2012/02/14/double-standards-solar-and-coal#commen\
t-38494>  ).

Key quotes: "On 7 February Ferguson announced
<http://minister.ret.gov.au/MediaCentre/MediaReleases/Pages/SolarFlagshi\
psProgram.aspx>  that the Moree Solar Farm — one of the Solar
Flagships program's shortlisted projects — was to lose its
$306.5 million Commonwealth grant. After eight months, the project had
failed to secure a power purchase agreement for its proposed 150
Megawatt solar power station. Although this was disappointing news, many
environmentalists became hopeful there would now be no way out for HRL,
a company that failed to meet the conditions of its $100 million
Commonwealth grant for a coal-fired power station by the 31 December
2011 deadline
<http://www.theage.com.au/national/coalfired-plant-faces-funding-threat-\
20111009-1lfu9.html>  set by the Gillard Government… However on 10
February Minister Ferguson and his Victorian Government counterpart
Michael O'Brien announced
<http://minister.ret.gov.au/MediaCentre/MediaReleases/Pages/$100MCarbonC\
aptureInvestmentLatrobeValley.aspx>  that HRL would be given another six
months to satisfy their grant preconditions."

I made the following comments on New Matilda in response to this
excellent article: "We were very optimistic when we recently heard
Julien Vincent and other climate activists argue for the cessation of
Government subsidy for HRL's dirty energy proposal (we were there on
the steps of the Victorian Parliament with our big Yarra Valley Climate
Action Group banner).

We were angered but not surprised by the Gillard Government's
further betrayal of the environment by continuing the offer of subsidy
for HRL's dirty energy plan. Unfortunately this is exactly what one
expects from this pro-oil wars, pro-coal, pro-gas, fossil fuel
burning-subsidizing, pro-logging, pro-uranium exports, neocon Labor
Government.

Apart from the fact that Labor violated a clear election promise, the
Carbon Tax is a massive deception. Treasury modelling in its 2011
"Strong Growth, Low Pollution" Report estimated that under the
Carbon Tax-ETS Australia's Domestic greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution
would rise from 578 million tonnes CO2-e in 2010 to 621 million tonnes
CO2-e in 2020 (see:
http://cache.treasury.gov.au/treasury/carbonpricemodelling/content/repor\
t/downloads/Modelling_Report_Consolidated.pdf
<http://cache.treasury.gov.au/treasury/carbonpricemodelling/content/repo\
rt/downloads/Modelling_Report_Consolidated.pdf>  ).

Indeed Australia's Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution in millions
of tonnes of CO2-e will rise under the Carbon Tax-ETS from 1,077 in 2000
to 1,799 in 2020 (a 1.7-fold increase over that in 2000) and to 4,490 in
2050 (a 4.2-fold increase over that in 2000) (see "2011 Climate
Change Course":
https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/2011-climate-change-course
<https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/2011-climate-change-course>
).

Tackling climate change means decreasing not increasing GHG pollution
but.the pro-coal, pro-gas, carbon burning-subsidizing Gillard Labor
Government is deceiving the public yet again - it has every intention of
INCREASING Australia's already huge greenhouse gas pollution.

The Coalition (the Libs) are as equally appalling as Labor (the Labs)
but at least one can say that (a) they wear their pro-war, pro-coal,
pro-gas, pro-logging awfulness on their sleeve and (b) they haven't
actually betrayed Labor voters - unlike the Australian Labor Party which
has become an Alternative Liberal Party, Another Liberal Party, an
Apartheid Labor Party and the Australian Lying Party.

The only effective voter strategy for defeating the de facto climate
change denialist Lib-Labs is "punish the incumbent". Just as
pro-coal, pro-gas, pro-logging Brumby Labor had to go in Victoria so
must the pro-coal, pro-gas, pro-logging Baillieu Libs for sabotaging
solar, sabotaging wind, cattle in the Alpine National Park and support
for more dirty energy.

A more precise suggestion Federally is to vote 1 Green and put Labor
last until it reverts to decent pro-peace, pro-environment, pro-equity ,
pro-human rights policies. The ALP's stance as Another Liberal Party
is a betrayal of decent Labor voters."

Dr Gideon Polya, Melbourne.



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

Ben Eltham (New Matilda's National Affairs Correspondent) has an article
in New Matilda entitled "Carbon free will be a hard slog" (see:
http://newmatilda.com/2012/02/07/carbon-free-will-be-hard-slog
<http://newmatilda.com/2012/02/07/carbon-free-will-be-hard-slog>  ).

Key quotes: "So renewable energy is in the box seat, right? Not so
fast. A new report
<http://www.grattan.edu.au/pub_page/124_report_tech_choices.html>  by
the Grattan Institute points out that the road to decarbonisation will
be much rockier than most of us imagine. The report's title, "No
Easy Choices", sums up the dilemma nicely. Australia has plenty of sun,
wind, and hot rocks deep underground. But transitioning from our current
high-carbon electricity footprint will require some hard decisions, and
pose significant economic and political risks for energy companies and
governments… The muscular lobbying efforts of motoring groups and
big resources companies have meant that Australian taxpayers subsidise
existing dirty energy industries by as much as $9 billion a year,
according
<https://www.tai.org.au/index.php?q=node%2F19&pubid=831&act=display>  to
the Australia Institute… The Grattan report also seems weak when it
comes to the potential for energy efficiency, smart grid and
micro-generation to change the nature of Australia's electricity
mix. Solar photovoltaic cells are falling in cost so rapidly that the
federal government's recent Energy White Paper draft dramatically
over-estimated
<http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/australias-great-big-ener\
gy-challenge> their cost, and the Grattan report may well have
over-estimated the speed of these falling costs too. With solar PV costs
falling off a cliff, many analysts think grid parity with coal may only
be a few years away.".

I made the following detailed comments about the article on New Matilda:
"Excellent article . Some points need clarifying.

1. According to the ACF the annual subsidy for fossil fuel burning is
now $12 billion per year (see ACF, "Australia spends $11 billion
more encouraging pollution than cleaning it up", ACF, 1 March 2011:
http://acfonline.org.au/articles/news.asp?news_id=3308
<http://acfonline.org.au/articles/news.asp?news_id=3308>  ).

2. Matt Wright is correct that baseload power is being provided in Spain
and the US by Concentrated Solar Thermal with molten salts energy
storage for essentially 24/7 operation (with back-ups for when there is
no wind for wind power and no sunlight for solar), The BZE plan for 100%
renewable energy for Australia by 2002 is costed at $370 billion (see
the BZE Zero Carbon Australia by 2020 (ZCA2020) Report:
http://beyondzeroemissions.org/ <http://beyondzeroemissions.org/> ).

3. Top electrical engineer Professor Peter Seligman (bionic ear
development; University of Melbourne) wrote a book "Australian
Sustainable Energy - by the numbers" that set out 100% renewable
nergy for Australia by 2030 for $253 billion, with energy storage
through pumping water into dam storage "batteries" (see:
http://energy.unimelb.edu.au/index.php?page=ozsebtn
<http://energy.unimelb.edu.au/index.php?page=ozsebtn>  ).

4. Coal burning-based power is cheaper than renewables only because our
carbon burning-based society conveniently ignores the huge human
morbidity and mortality associated with coal burning. Thus a study
commissioned by the Ontario, Canada Government found that the
"true' cost of coal burning based power with environmental
impacts and human mortaliity factored in would be 4-5 times the present
"market " price (see Paul Gipe, "Ontario study identifies
social costs of coal-fired power plants", EV World, :
http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=8836
<http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=8836>  ). It is estimated that
10,000 Australians die each year from carbon burning pollutants
(excluding bush fires) (see:
https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/2011-carbon-\
burning
<https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/2011-carbon\
-burning>  ).

5. Ignoring cost-increasing energy storage and transmission grid costs
and cost-decreasing economies of scale for a 2- to10-fold size increase,
here are 2 similar cost estimates for installation of wind power for 80%
of Australia's projected 325,000 GWh of annual electrical energy by
2020: (1) 90,000 MW capacity, 260,000 GWh/year, $200 billion/10 years
(10-fold scale-up from GL Garrad Hassan) and (2) 96,000 MW, 260,000
GWh/year, $144 billion (2-fold scale up from BZE ) (see "2011
Climate Change Course":
https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/2011-climate-change-course
<https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/2011-climate-change-course>
).

6. In 2009 the German Advisory Council on Climate Change (WBGU)
determined that for a 75% chance of avoiding a 2 degree C temperature
rise, the World must pollute less than 600 Gt CO2 between 2010 and
essentially zero emissions in 2050. Unfortunately Australia (through
disproportionately huge annual fossil fuel burning and exports) had
already used up its share" of this terminal greenhouse gas (GHG)
budget by mid-2011 and is now stealing the entitlement of impoverished
and acutely climate change-threatened countries like Somalia and
Bangladesh (see "Shocking analysis by country of years left to zero
emissions", Green Blog, 1 August 2011:
http://www.green-blog.org/2011/08/01/shocking-analysis-by-country-of-yea\
rs-left-to-zero-emissions/
<http://www.green-blog.org/2011/08/01/shocking-analysis-by-country-of-ye\
ars-left-to-zero-emissions/>   )."

Dr Gideon Polya, Melbourne



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

Calliste Weitenberg (a freelance journalist based at the Australian
Centre for Investigative Journalism) has written an article on New
Matilda about the gas drilling industry using big lobbyists to get
political action (see "Gas drillers bring in the heavy hitters":
http://newmatilda.com/2012/02/06/gasdrillers-heavy-hitters
<http://newmatilda.com/2012/02/06/gasdrillers-heavy-hitters>  ).

.Key quotes: "As public sentiment shifts against the sector,
NSW's biggest coal seam gas companies are busier than ever
safeguarding their billion dollar babies with the help of high profile
and well connected lobbyists.Together the big CSG players —
Metgasco, Santos and AGL — have seven separate lobby firms working
for them, more than doubling their clout behind the scenes…
According to Greens MLC and mining spokesperson, Jeremy Buckingham, the
current lobbying by firms on behalf of the CSG industry is proving
"enormously influential". Giving up on convincing the crowd, the
lobbyists are aiming straight for the conservative heavyweights."

I made the following comments on the article on New Matilda:
"Excellent article. A clear way of estimating the success of the Gas
Lobby is to quantitate their success with the taxpayer-funded ABC as set
out below.

In addition to despoiling the landscape, violating amenity, salinizing
land and depleting and polluting aquifers there are 2 fundamental
reasons why Coal Seam Gas development should be stopped in Australia,
the US and like high per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution
countries.

1. In 2009, the WBGU which advises the German Government on climate
change has estimated that for a 75% chance of avoiding a 2C temperature
risr (EU policy) the World can emit no more than 600 billion tonnes of
carbon dioxide (CO2) between 2010 and zero emissions in 2050.
Australia's share of this terminal GHG pollution budget is 600,000
million tonnes CO2 x 22 million/7000 million = 1885 million tonnes CO2.
At Australia's current rate of Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution
of 1,415 million tonnes of CO2-e (2010; see "2011 Climate Change
Course":
https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/2011-climate-change-course
<https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/2011-climate-change-course>
), Australia had 1,885/1,415 = 1.3 years to achieve zero emissions i.e.
Australia had used up its fair share of the terminal pollution budget by
about mid-2011 and is now stealing the entitlement of impoverished
countries such as Bangladesh and Somalia (see "Shocking analysis by
country of years left to zero emissions", Green Blog, 1 August 2911:
http://www.green-blog.org/2011/08/01/shocking-analysis-by-country-of-yea\
rs-left-to-zero-emissions/
<http://www.green-blog.org/2011/08/01/shocking-analysis-by-country-of-ye\
ars-left-to-zero-emissions/>   ).

Ergo, Australia should be closing down fossil fuel extraction, not
generating more.

2. Methane (CH4) is a major part of natural gas, is a gas, leaks
significantly and is 105 times worse than CO2 as a GHG on a 20 year time
fram with aerosol impacts taken into account (see Drew T. Shindell ,
Greg Faluvegi, Dorothy M. Koch , Gavin A. Schmidt , Nadine Unger and
Susanne E. Bauer , "Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to
Emissions", Science, 30 October 2009, Vol. 326 no. 5953 pp. 716-718:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5953/716
<http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5953/716>  and Shindell et al
(2009), Fig.2:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5953/716.figures-only
<http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5953/716.figures-only>  ). CH4
leakage from fracking can be 7.9% as comapre dotthe US average if 3.3%
and depending upon th leakage gas burnig for power can be worse GHG-wise
than coal burning (see Robert W. Howarth, Renee Santoro and Anthony
Ingraffea, "Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas
from shale formations", Climatic Change, 2011:
http://www.sustainablefuture.cornell.edu/news/attachments/Howarth-EtAl-2\
…
<http://www.sustainablefuture.cornell.edu/news/attachments/Howarth-EtAl-\
2011.pdf>  ). Indeed, with existing infrastructure in Victoria at 3.3%
leakage , gas burning as bad GHG-wise as coal burnig at Hazelwood
(Australia's dirtiest coal-fired power plant) and if 7.9% would be
twice as bad a Hazelwood GHG-wise (see "Gas is not clean
energy": https://sites.google.com/site/gasisnotcleanenergy/home
<https://sites.google.com/site/gasisnotcleanenergy/home>  ).

Ergo, burning Coal Seam Gas for power may be as bad as and may be twice
as dirty GHG-wise as burning coal i.e. don't do it.

Now the taxpayer-funded ABC has a search engine that enables you to
search "the entire ABC site" but an ABC search for the following
yields ZERO (0) results in relation to key points #1 and #2 above that
are crucial to sensible public debate: "drew shindell" (see:
http://search.abc.net.au/search/search.cgi?query=%22drew+shindell%22&sor\
t=&collection=abcall_meta&form=simple
<http://search.abc.net.au/search/search.cgi?query=%22drew+shindell%22&so\
rt=&collection=abcall_meta&form=simple>  ) , "robert howarth",
"105 times", "WBGU", "domestic plus exported",
"600 billion tonnes".

The taxpayer-funded ABC has a shocking record of sustained lying by
omission, false reportage and censorship (see "ABC Censorship":
https://sites.google.com/site/abccensorship/
<https://sites.google.com/site/abccensorship/>  ). Given that the
Lib-Labs are to the right of the ABC there is little hope fro serious
action on man-made climate change when the ABC stifles the debate.
Australia is a Murdochcracy (Big Money buys public perception of the
truth and hence votes) and a Lobbyocracy (Big Money buys politicians,
parties, policies and votes)."

Dr Gideon Polya,  Melbourne.



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

Dear Friends/Co-sailors,
>
>
>
>Please find below my article in response to the Draft National Water Policy
2012 published at the following link:  
http://infochangeindia.org/water-resources/analysis/water-economic-good-or-right\
-to-life.html.  
>
>
>Look forward to your comments.
>
>
>Thanks and regards,
>
>
>Ranjan
>
>
>========== 
>
>
>Water: Economic good or right to life?
>
>
>The Draft Water Policy 2012 makes all the right noises about
keeping livelihood and ecosystem needs as the first priority, but contradicts
this by insisting that water must be seen as an ‘economic good’, says Ranjan
K
Panda
>
>
>A farmer in Uttarakhand, who I recently met on my way from
Ranikhet to Paksa, poses a challenge to the Draft National Water Policy, 2012
even though he does not know anything about it or the fact that the draft is up
for comment on the Union government’s Ministry of Water Resources website. The
draft policy, in line with the World Bank and Asian Development Bank formula of
water management, reiterates the need to consider water as an ‘economic
good’
and says there is still lack of awareness among the people of this nation about
effective use of the resource.
>
>
>Did this farmer treat water as an economic good, or as an
essential he couldn’t afford not to have?
>
>
>The economy is linked to profit. If that is so, this
subsistence farmer should profit from the water he is entitled to by way of
government provisioning or through his own effort. Ironically though, he is a
lossmaker in the business of collecting a lifesaving resource that is
supposedly guaranteed to him by the nation as a ‘right to life’.
>
>
>When cash or paying capacity is the only deciding factor in
gaining access to a resource like water, the poor will certainly enjoy no
rights and will be further excluded.
>
>
>It was January 31, 2012, a day after polling for the state
assembly ended. Everywhere, people were talking politics. My ‘happy’
villager
was boasting how the MLA candidate of ‘his’ party, an ex-professor from
Delhi
University who owned factories near Delhi, had negotiated votes from his
village at Rs 1,000 each. The ‘other’ party had offered Rs 500. Buying votes
is
easy these days!
>
>
>Fetching water is not so simple. In these hilly parts water
is scarce despite thousands of springs and streams feeding the gadheras
(rivulets) and rivers. The worst stretch is from mid-February till about June,
when they have to climb 2 km down a steep slope to fetch water from the
gadhera. Water for the village comes from a spring on the upper slopes of the
hills; they pay Rs 35 a month for two hours of water supply. The taps run dry
March onwards, until the monsoon.
>
>
>The village’s drinking water supply project involved
people’s contribution at about 20% in the form of labour. From what I could
gather, for a project that cost around Rs 8 lakh, 40 families contributed
around Rs 160,000 through their labour. That’s roughly Rs 4,000 per family.
Each family has to pay an additional Rs 420 per year to get water for their
domestic needs, that too only for eight months.
>The farmer told me he had 50 nali of land (about 1 hectare).
All of it is rain-fed, enough to produce wheat, rice and millets for his family
of seven. In good years, when he has some produce to sell, he gets a cash
income of around Rs 2,000-3,000. Over the last 15 years, he has had only three
such ‘good’ years. Cash for medical attention, education, clothing etc is
met
by earning a daily wage working on someone else’s field, plantation, or on
roads and other projects including the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment
Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS).
>
>
>Calculated over 15 years, the water tax that the farmer paid
per year was 70% of his income!
>
>
>Can we discount the role of the state in providing adequate
and good quality water to people? Or should we hand the job over to private
suppliers who will distribute the natural resource to whoever they want, and
profit from it? Whose resource is it and who profits from it? The draft policy
does not answer any of these questions.
>
>
>In its February 2 verdict against the corrupt allocation of
2G spectrum, the Supreme Court stated: “Natural resources are vested with the
government as a matter of trust in the name of the people of India
 It is the
solemn duty of the state to protect the national interest, and natural resources
must always be used in the interests of the country and not private
interests.”
>
>
>But those who use water for profit and luxury are being
favoured in this country over those who use water for survival. In Orissa in
November 2011, Water Initiatives Odisha (WIO), a civil society network,
revealed that the water bureaucracy in the state was turning a blind eye to
illegal exploitation of groundwater by Vedanta Alumina Ltd’s Jharsuguda plant.
Despite the government having stated that the company was drawing groundwater
without permission and that it had not paid taxes and fines for water it was
drawing from the Hirakud reservoir and Bheden river for over five years, the
executive engineer of the main dam division recommended a waiver of taxes to
the water resources department, stating that the company was a regular taxpayer
and that instructions for not collecting tax from the company had been received
‘telephonically’ from an additional secretary with the department. This was
happening in connivance with the water bureaucracy until the matter was exposed
and opposition political parties rocked the assembly in a recently concluded
session. This, in a state whose effective irrigation coverage is a mere 20% and
which is struggling to provide the promised 35% irrigation to all blocks.
Indeed, it has been alleged that various corporate houses and commercial
establishments owe water taxes to the tune of Rs 3,000 crore, only from water
they have taken from the Hirakud reservoir. The money has been outstanding for
decades!
>
>
>The Hirakud dam, one of independent India’s first examples
of colonisation of water resources, is now the focus of a vibrant movement by
farmers against the diversion of water from irrigation to industry. While
thousands of people displaced by the dam more than half-a-century ago are still
to be compensated for the loss of their land (most have settled around the
reservoir), they have been fighting an endless battle to get assured
irrigation. A rise in the number of farmer suicides around the Hirakud reservoir
in recent years is just the latest shameful manifestation of the water resource
management practices being promoted in this country with the focus on large,
centralised reservoirs.
>
>
>The Rs 3,000 crore that corporations owe the state in the
form of water tax and fines would fund at least 600 minor irrigation projects,
saving 12,000 farm families from drought and related drudgery.
>
>
>The draft policy in its current form, propagating
privatisation of water resources, will only strengthen those forms of water
governance in which the poor subsidise the rich even as the rich continue their
water theft. All this in the name of ‘effective management’!
>
>
>The draft mentions that access to safe and clean drinking
water and sanitation must be regarded as a right to life, essential to the full
enjoyment of life and all other human rights. But, in a highly inequitable
society where the rich and corporations have all the power to decide, and with
no clear-cut ‘right to water’ guaranteed by the rule of law and backed by a
solid
people-oriented democratic institutional mechanism, it will only serve to
increase the prevailing water inequality.
>
>
>Water democracy, not water bureaucracy
>
>
>The draft water policy promotes a Water Regulatory
Authority. This is another form of centralisation of power with the
democratically elected government playing a lesser role. The same bureaucratic
structures that have led to the scarcity we see today, and which force us to
regulate our water use, will become more powerful. What people need is greater
community control over water resources. Panchayats, assemblies and parliament
should all play a vibrant role in managing water resources. Leaving it solely
to a bureaucrat-controlled regulatory authority will only fuel more conflict.
>
>
>Finally, the culture of public consultations that has arisen
in India whilst deciding on important policy matters that have a bearing on the
life and livelihoods of people and other life forms must be reviewed.
Governments, both at the centre and the states, are now comfortable seeking
public opinion on policies via the Internet. Only a few people and
organisations get a chance to participate in such virtual consultations.
>
>
>2002 to 2012: Change for the worse?
>
>
>The National Water Policy, 2002 also treated water as an
economic good and talked about regulations and systematic planning, cost
recovery, etc. However, we lost more water than we had in this one decade,
water conflicts grew, and the bias towards corporations and the rich deepened.
>
>
>While the Draft Water Policy, 2012 accords basic livelihood
and ecosystem needs first priority, its prescription for turning water into an
‘economic good’ after these needs are met makes it an easy tool to exploit
water for profit. No lessons appear to have been learnt. Further, without a
proper
account of current needs, use and exploitation integrated with population
increases, growing demand, and stresses arising out of climate change, it’s
almost impossible to monitor such a vague and unclear ‘prioritisation’.
>
>
>That the country still doesn’t have an updated database on
the state of its water resources is clear from the draft policy which fails to
come up with any concrete data on most issues it deals with. The existing
policy expressed concern about adequate and accurate data; the proposed draft
repeats this concern. All plans and policies related to water use and
management are destined to fail in the absence of data, transparency and
accessibility. It’s perhaps because of this inadequacy of data and assessment
that
the policy fails to quantify that ‘minimum’ of basic need beyond which it
suggests water be treated as an ‘economic good’.
>
>
>Maintaining ecological flow, a major concern across the
globe, has not been accorded due seriousness in the draft policy. Like the 2002
policy, the draft proposes to set aside a portion of river flow to meet
ecological needs. Considering the extent of degradation of India’s rivers and
the pace of industrialisation and urbanisation, with scant control over the use
and abuse of rivers by these sectors, ensuring the minimum ecological flow of
rivers will be difficult. Indeed here water as a survival need and as an
economic good contradict one another. The draft policy puts the onus of
local-level awareness, maintenance etc on local communities but fails to
recognise that most river basins are polluted and stressed by industry and
urban settlement. While the latter need water for survival and basic
livelihoods, the former has historically been an abuser. Further, whilst basic
users cannot pay for the use in ‘cash’, commercial and luxury users can use
‘cash payment’ to justify their abuse of the resource.
>
>
>None of these problems have been addressed by the 2002
policy; the current draft does nothing further than advocating age-old and
unviable transfer of water from open to closed basins and the formulation of
regulatory authorities.
>
>
>What we should do, according to veteran water expert
Ramaswamy Iyer, is to try and reverse our thinking. “The ecology cannot be
asked to accommodate development needs. Our visions of development must spring
from an understanding of ecological limits,” he asserts. Himanshu Thakkar of
the South Asian Network on Dams, Rivers and People finds a way out in the South
African Water Act: “When the South African Water Act was passed in 1997, based
on the White Paper on South African Water and Sanitation Policy, 1994, the
policy took a detailed look at defining water for basic human needs, its
quality, quantity, access, distance etc, as well as various issues related to
water
and environment. It was only with this background that South Africa could take
the 
>revolutionary step of securing water for basic human needs and ecological
reserves first. It went through a rigorous, extensive process of consultations
with communities and other stakeholders (which still continues) to actually
calculate the reserve, implement it and monitor it.”
>
>
>As against the 2002 policy, the 2012 policy considers
climate change a major factor. This is understandable as debates and
discussions around climate change increased substantially after the formation
of the National Climate Change Action Plan, which is also said to have mandated
the need for a new water policy. However, when it comes to mitigation and
adaptation, the draft discounts the culprits and asks communities to take
action, become sensitised and be resilient. It is now well established that
rural communities -- a majority of the country’s population -- are excellent
at
adapting to climate change.
>
>
>It is urban society, large, centralised and heavy investment
development models, and industry that are the real culprits. The policy should
therefore make it mandatory for these sectors also to be climate sensitive and
use water more rationally. This can be done through water rationing for these
segments. Putting a price on water and leaving its management in the hands of
the private sector will only increase the access of richer sections to this
resource. India’s National Water Policy must recognise this reality.
>
>
>Guiding principles
>
>
>The National Water Policy should be based on the following
guiding principles:
>
>
>- Water is a finite natural resource over which all human
beings and other species have equal rights.
>
>
>- Centralised authoritarian structures of water governance and
regulation should be done away with.
>
>
>- Water for life and livelihoods (communities/people who are
directly dependent on water for their livelihood, for example, fisherfolk)
should be provided free of cost as part of the state’s responsibility under
the
principle of ‘rights’ of these communities over the resource.
>
>
>- Industry and corporate houses that use water as a
‘commercial good’ for production and profit must not be considered
‘decision-making’ stakeholders and hence must never be allowed to sit on any
decision-making bodies related to water management and governance.
>
>
>- Water allocation should be based on the carrying capacity of
the ecology, considering present and future use, demand, recharging and threat
perspectives, where ‘future’ should not be limited to a few decades only.
>
>
>- If there has to be any bias towards a section in water
allocation then it should be towards the poor, farmers, fisherfolk and other
sections of society whose lives and livelihood are directly related to water.
And, of course, towards other life forms on earth.
>
>
>(Ranjan Panda, Convenor, Water Initiatives Odisha, is a
leading water researcher and activist. He is also a senior freelance
journalist)
>
>
>Infochange News & Features, February 2012
>
>
>Source:
http://infochangeindia.org/water-resources/analysis/water-economic-good-or-right\
-to-life.html
> --
>Ranjan K Panda
>Convenor
>
>
>Water Initiatives Odisha: Fighting water woes, combating climate
change... more than two decades now!
>
>
> R-3/A-4, J. M. Colony, Budharaja
>Sambalpur 768 004, Odisha, INDIA
>
>
>Mobile:             +919437050103      
>Email: ranjanpanda@..., ranjanpanda@...
>You can also mail me at: ranjan.waterman@...
>
>Skype: ranjan.climatecrusader
> 
>Blog: http://www.climatecrusaders.blogspot.com/ 
> 
>Please join our group 'Save Rivers Save Civilizations'
at http://www.facebook.com/groups/220598744649462
>
>
>Water talks to me, I speak for Water...
>
>
>Water Initiatives Odisha (WIO) is a state level coalition of civil society
organisations, farmers, academia, media and other concerned, which has been
working on water, environment and climate change issues in the state for more
than two decades now.  
>

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

SNAP RALLY, SYDNEY NSW, This Wednesday, Parliament House, Lunch Time (1230) NO
uranium mining in NSW - see ya there :-)
http://www.nccnsw.org.au/content/snap-rally-no-uranium-mining-nsw

I intend to release the next issue of Bobbing Around in the first week of March.
Already, I have some excellent material, but there is room for more. To inpect
submission guidelines, please go to http://mudsmith.net/bobbing.html

:)
Bob



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

Dr Neil Perry (research lecturer at the University of Western Sydney)
published an article on The Conversation describing how Coalition
politicians are strangling wind power in NSW as well as in Victoria
(see "Not a level playing field for wind power":
http://theconversation.edu.au/not-a-level-playing-field-for-wind-power-5\
469
<http://theconversation.edu.au/not-a-level-playing-field-for-wind-power-\
5469>  ).

Key quotes "The NSW government claims that they are adopting a
precautionary approach
<http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=5yeY6yw_wRE%3D\
&tabid=205&mid=1081&language=en-AU>  concerning the health issues
associated with wind turbines. This is despite the absence of evidence
<http://www.mass.gov/dep/public/press/0112wind.htm>  supporting wind
turbine syndrome.Yet this is not the approach taken with coal seam gas,
where health effects
<http://lockthegate.org.au/health-forum/dr-helen-redmond.cfm>  are more
conclusive."

Posted comment by software engineer and secondary teacher Matthew
Thredgold: "I'd like to veto every wood burning stove and every pile
of burning prunings within 2km of where I live. I'd happily live 500
metres from a large wind turbine and I'd put a small one in the back
garden or smaller ones on my roof."

I posted the following detailed comment on the article: "Excellent
article by Dr Neil Perry and sensible, germane  comment by Matthew
Thredgold. While there is no hard evidence for "wind turbine syndrome",
carbon burning variously generates  deadly particulate and other
pollutants that kill about 10,000 Australians each year.



Our corporate-dominated look-the-other-way Lobbyocracy  resolutely fails
to ask the key question:  "How many Australians die each year from the
effects of pollutants from vehicles, coal burning for electricity and
other carbon burning?" The answer: about 2,200, 4,600 and 2,800,
respectively (the last figure ignoring  bushfire -derived pollution).



At a "value of a statistical life" (VOSL) of $7.6 million per person
($73 billion pa for Australian carbon burning-related deaths) and
assuming $9 billion pa in fossil fuel subsidies, the minimum Carbon
Price to cover carbon burning-derived deaths and carbon burning
subsidies is $554 per tonne of carbon as compared to the best political
offer yet of $23 per tonne of carbon (for detailed and documented
analysis see "2011. Australian carbon burning-related deaths and carbon
burning subsidies => minimum Carbon Price of A$554 per tonne carbon",
Yarra Valley Climate Action Group:
https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/2011-carbon-\
burning
<https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/2011-carbon\
-burning>   ).



It has been estimated that when one takes into account human mortality
and environmental impact the true price of coal burning-based electric
power in Ontario, Canada, is 4 to 5 times greater than the actual
"market price" (see Paul Gipe, "Ontario study identifies social
costs of coal-fired power plants", EV World, :
http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=8836
<http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=8836>   ).



This is where the 10,000 preventable deaths from carbon burning
pollutants sits among the 66,000 annual preventable deaths in Australia
that include  hospital adverse events (18,000), smoking (15,500),
carbon-burning pollution-derived deaths (10,000), Indigenous Australian
avoidable deaths (9,000),  obesity-related deaths (6,000),
alcohol-related deaths (3,000), suicides (2,100), road deaths (1,400),
opiate drug-related deaths due to US Alliance restoration of the
Taliban-destroyed Afghan opium industry (360) and homicides (300, with
about 40% of victims being female) (see "Why PM Julia Gillard Must Go:
66,000 Preventable Australian Deaths Annually ", Countercurrents, 21
February 2012: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya210212.htm
<http://www.countercurrents.org/polya210212.htm>   ).



The NSW and Victorian Coalition  Governments are a total disgrace by
strangling life-preserving wind power and should be kicked out at the
next election – the primary function of any government must be to
preserve the health and lives of its citizens .



It would cost very little to replace fossil fuel-burning based power
that kills about 5,000 Australians each year with life-preserving wind
power. Ignoring cost-increasing energy storage and transmission grid
costs and cost-decreasing economies of scale for a 2- to10-fold size
increase, here are 2 similar cost estimates for installation of wind
power for 80% of Australia's projected 325,000 GWh of annual
electrical energy by 2020: (1) 90,000 MW capacity, 260,000 GWh/year,
$200 billion/10 years (10-fold scale-up from GL Garrad Hassan) and (2)
96,000 MW, 260,000 GWh/year, $144 billion (2-fold scale up from BZE )
(see 2011 Climate Change Course":
https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/2011-climate-change-course
<https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/2011-climate-change-course>
)."



Dr Gideon Polya, Melbourne



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

And you think we are dependent on fossil fuels to achieve great feats of
architecture and engineering ... think again - Human Power!

http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/ecotech-myths.html

You can get lost on this website - so many great ideas - and the
discussions of their pros and cons is very balanced.  Add modern technology
to the mix - and you discover we can do damn near anything we do today -
only issue... it is slower... and our speed expectations need severe
trimming.

  for starts click on the picture of the big wheel thing on the right - it's
about medieval lifting machines - human powered.. - it ought to be printed
out as a book.

H


Thanks to Mike Stasse (roeoz)




<http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/>Low-tech Magazine

some samples...



 			 Doubts on progress and technology
  <http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/>Home
  <http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/about.html>About
  <http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/site-map.html>All articles
  <http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/obsolete-technology.html>Obsolete
technology      <http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/ecotech-myths.html>Ecotech
myths
<http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/low-tech-solutions.html>Low-tech solutions
      <http://www.notechmagazine.com/>No Tech Magazine





 	 <http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/09/urban-windmills.html>«
Urban windmills harm the environment |
	 <http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/>Main  |
<http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/10/led-light-cfl-b.html>Viva Las
Vegas: LEDs and the energy efficiency paradox »



September 11, 2008

The age of speed: how to reduce global fuel consumption by 75 percent

If we cut the average speed of all vehicles by half, fuel consumption would
decrease by a whopping 75 percent.

<http://krisdedecker.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/09/10/speed_of_the_wi
nd_2.jpg>

Breaking speed records was an almost daily occurence throughout the  20th
century. Cars, ships, planes and trains became faster and faster,  year
after year. Because the power needed to push an object through air
increases with the cube of velocity, this race to ever higher speeds
raises energy consumption exponentially.

Engineers treat velocity as a non-variable, while in fact it is the  most
powerful factor to save a really huge amount of energy - with just  one
stroke, at minimal cost, and without the need for new technology.  Lower
speeds combined with more energy efficient engines, better  aerodynamics
and lighter materials could make fuel savings even larger.
                                                                     Picture
:
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/mando_gal/1721923125/in/set-72157600770287334/>Man
do Maniac


"The fastest car in the world reaches 10 times the speed of a normal
vehicle cruising the highway, but it consumes 550 times more fuel"

Air resistance (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_%28physics%29>drag)
increases with the square of speed, and therefore the power needed to push
an object through air increases with the cube of the velocity (see the
formula
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_%28physics%29#Drag_at_high_velocity>here).  I
f a car cruising on the highway at 80 km/h requires 30 kilowatts to
overcome air drag, that same car will require 240 kilowatts at a speed  of
160 km/h. Thus, a vehicle needs 8 times the engine power to reach  twice
the speed. In principle, this means that fuel consumption will  increase
fourfold (not eightfold, because the faster vehicle exerts the  power only
over half the time).



<http://krisdedecker.typepad.com/.a/6a00e0099229e888330111688b244c970c-pi>



Picture: <http://www.brooklandsarchives.com/>The Brooklands Society Photo
Archives



Over a distance of 1,000 kilometres, the slow car would consume 375
kilowatt-hours (12.5 hours multiplied by 30 kilowatts) and the fast car
would consume 1,500 kilowatt-hours (6.25 hours multiplied by 240
kilowatts).



Speed is the key



However, this extra fuel consumption can be diminished or even  negated by,
most importantly, more fuel efficient engines, lighter vehicles materials
and better aerodynamics. Even though today's cars are faster than those
from decades ago, they consume
<http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/06/citroen-2cv.html>a similar amount
of fuel. This is the reason why almost everybody is talking about energy
efficiency and aerodynamics, and not about speed.

But if you lower the speed, fuel consumption is decreased by  the full 75
percent. More efficient technology can not change that –  unless in a
positive way. If you combine a lower speed with more fuel  efficient
engines and better aerodynamics, fuel savings can become much  larger than
75 percent.



Aerodynamics

Drag can be partly offset by better aerodynamics: a boxy car like the
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_740> Volvo 740 has a drag area
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_coefficient> drag coefficient
multiplied by frontal area) that is
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coefficient#CdA> almost twice
that of the most aerodynamic standard car, the
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Insight> Honda Insight. The Volvo needs
almost two times the engine power of the Honda when driven at 120 km/h.

"A boxy car vehicle at 60 km/h will consume much less fuel than the most
aerodynamic vehicle driving at 120 km/h"


<http://krisdedecker.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/09/10/rocket_racer_2.
jpg>


Picture : the <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Steamer>Stanley - the
fastest steamcar ever built.

Yet a Volvo 740 driving at 60 km/h will face less than half the drag  and
will need 4.6 times less energy power than a Honda Insight driving  at 120
km/h. When compared to velocity, the potential of aerodynamics is  limited.

Moreover, very good aerodynamics is incompatible with high speeds.  Formula
1 racing cars have the worst drag coefficients of all vehicles  on wheels,
because of their large spoilers and very wide tyres. At  higher speeds, it
becomes important to minimize lift at the expense of  better aerodynamics
so that the car is not catapulted into the air.

Low speed trains

The blindness for the importance of speed leads to doubtful conclusions,
like the environmentally friendly label of
<http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2007/04/planes-on-whe-1.html>high speed
trains. The French TGV that set the most recent speed record at 575 km/h
for wheeled trains in 2007 has an engine output of
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV_world_speed_record#V150_record_train>19,600 ki
lowatts. A contemporary "slow" train like the
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EuroSprinter>Siemens ES64 with a top speed of
240 km/h has a maximum power output of 6,400 kilowatts.



Travelling 1,000 kilometres, the "slow" train will consume 26,240
kilowatt-hours (over 4.1 hours) while the fast train will consume 33.320
kilowatt-hours (over 1.7 hours). A real slow train
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DB_Class_E_41>like this one from 1956  with
a top speed of 120 km/h) would consume only 20,000 kilowatt-hours  over the
same trajectory (and would do this in 8.3 hours, comparable to  the travel
time of a car).


"Technology can limit the growth of energy consumption, but if we  want to
lower energy consumption, we have no other choice but to adapt  (to slow)
speed"


The French high speed train is definitely more energy efficient than  the
Siemens locomotive, and that one is definitely more energy efficient  than
the 1956 train, because in both cases power consumption did not  increase
exponentially
(<http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/09/reduce-fuel-consumption-cut-speed.php#
comment-218207>*)  with speed. But that does not take away the fact that
the faster trains  consume more energy than the slower trains. If, on the
other hand, we  would equip the 1956 train with the energy-efficient
technology of  today's high speed train, it would consume much less energy
than it did  50 years ago.



Time is money

High speed trains are labelled environmentally friendly because they  are
not compared to other trains but to planes (A Boeing 747 would  consume
around 65,000 kWh over the same distance, over approximately 1  hour).

In a way this makes sense, because if a passenger prefers the fast  train
over the plane, he will consume less energy for a similar trip. He  might
not make that choice when the train would be much slower than the  plane.
On the other hand, if passengers that normally would take a slow  train
<http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/12/train-travel.html> now prefer a
fast train,  high speed trains do raise energy consumption. The problem is
that  people see a shorter travel time as an advantage, while it has no
ecological value whatsoever.



"Travelling from A to B would require twice as much time. But global world
oil consumption would be halved"


You could as well argue that airplanes are green because they consume less
fuel than rockets. This sounds ridiculous now, but
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7315430.stm>if rocket planes
take off,  their inventors will no doubt claim that their toys are
environmentally  friendly because they go faster than airplanes but consume
less than  rockets. Technology alone can limit the growth of energy
consumption,  but if we want to lower energy consumption, we have no other
choice but to adapt speed.


Fixation on technology

A decrease of 75 percent in fuel consumption is not peanuts. More  than 60
percent of world oil production is used for transportation,  which means
that total oil production would be almost halved (-45%). In  combination
with more efficient engines, better aerodynamics and lighter  materials a
75 percent reduction of oil production is not unrealistic.

Yet, when the International Energy Agency argues that the average car  sold
in 2030 would need to consume 60 percent less fuel than the  average car
sold in 2005, it
<http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2007/Fuel_Effi_Road_Info.pdf>
claims:  "With current technologies, only plug-in hybrids are capable of
this".  This statement is wrong. We could lower the fuel consumption of
cars  (and other vehicles) by at least 75 percent, we could do it today,
and  we can do it with present technology.



© Kris De Decker (edited by Vincent Grosjean)



Wave drag, sound barrier and hull speed



  <http://krisdedecker.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/09/10/thrust_scc_3.j
pg>At extreme high speeds, the link between velocity and power consumption
becomes even more defined. Here,
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_drag>wave drag  enters the picture and
drag increases more. This is the reason why  commercial airplanes never fly
faster than an average speed of about 900  km/h (except for the retired
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde#Environmental_impact>Concorde). If
they would go faster than 1.200 km/h, they would break the
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_barrier>sound barrier at the expense of
a massive increase in power consumption.



The <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThrustSSC>Thrust SCC (pictured left), the
car that holds the <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_speed_record>land
speed record  of 1,228 km/h, and thus broke the sound barrier, consumed
5,500 litres  of fuel per 100 kilometres. So even though its speed is only
10 times  higher than a normal car driving the highway, the supersonic car
consumes around 550 times more fuel. A picture collection of land speed
record vehicles can be found
<http://www.oobject.com/category/most-beautiful-land-speed-record-vehicles/>here
.

<http://krisdedecker.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/09/10/plane_speed_rec
ord.jpg> When travelling on water, a
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_making_resistance>similar effect  comes
into play - albeit at much lower speeds. Every watercraft  contains a speed
barrier that is (mainly) dependent on the length of the  ship and on the
shape of its bow. This barrier (called the
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull_speed>hull speed in layman's terms) can
be crossed, but only at the expense of another exponential increase in
power consumption.



This is why ships are so much slower than other kinds of transport, and why
<http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/06/ocean-liners.html>most fast ferries
were retired. The <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_speed_record>fastest
watercraft  reached a record speed of 511 km/h - not even half that of the
fastest  car. Underwater drag is even worse: the speed record of
submarines is  only 60 km/h.

Greenpeace has released an important report entitled "Boom Goes the
Reef. Australia's coal export boom and the industrialisation of the
Great Barrier Reef", March 2012:
http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/Global/australia/reports/Download%20\
the%20report.pdf
<http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/Global/australia/reports/Download%2\
0the%20report.pdf>  .



Key quotes: "Capacity for [Queensland] coal exports by 2020: 944
million tonnes. That's enough to fill a coal train and wrap it 4.5
times around the world. Coal throughput in 2011: 156 million tonnes
…



Number of coal ships in 2011: 1,722. Number of coal ships in 2020:
10,150 (more than one per hour all year)…



Proposed and approved dredged material removed from the Great Barrier
Reef would fill 67 MCGs or 113,184, 000 m3 ([MCG=] Melbourne Cricket
Ground)…



The permanent destruction of the Great Barrier Reef would be both an
environmental and economic disaster. But it is the reality we face
today. Significant industrialisation has already taken place in and
around the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. This will be dwarfed
if the proposed coal and gas expansions are approved…



The findings of the UNESCO monitoring mission will de discussed at the
World Heritage Convention in St Petersburg in the Russian Federation in
June and July this year. There is the possibility that UNESCO will
declare the Great Barrier Reef "in danger" as a result of the
government failing to address  the cumulative industrial impacts facing
the  reef …



Sacrificing the  Great Barrier  Reef for industrial excess cannot be an
option. Today, we still have the opportunity to protect it, but that
window is closing fast."



To put this in a wider context, the Great Barrier Reef and indeed most
world coral reefs are also acutely threatened  by man-mad global
warming. In 2011 the  atmospheric CO2 reached  394 ppm and was
increasing at 2.4  ppm per year (see Mauna Loa CO2, US NOAA:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
<http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/>  ) . At 450 ppm atmospheric
CO2 (in about 23 years' time at this rate) most coral will be doomed
from bleaching due to expulsion of symbiotic photosynthetic microalgal
zooxanthellae  (due to ocean warming) and from inability to make the
calcareous exoskeleton (due to ocean acidification) (see 300.org –
return atmosphere CO2 to 300 ppm":
https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org---return-atmosphere-co2\
-to-300-ppm
<https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org---return-atmosphere-co\
2-to-300-ppm>  ).

Australia is one of the World's worst annual per capita greenhouse
gas polluters. Success in "tackling climate change" is surely
measured in terms of GHG pollution reduction but Australia's
Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution increased from 1,077 Mt CO2-e (CO2
equivalent) in 2000 to 1,415 million tonnes CO2-e in 2009 and is
expected to reach about 1,799 Mt CO2-e by 2020 and 4,490b Mt CO2-e in
2050. However Treasury ABARE and US EIA data show the following
Australian Domestic and Exported GHG pollution (in millions of tonnes of
CO2-equivalent, Mt CO2-e) for Australia under the now-legislated
Australian Carbon Price plan (see "2011 Climate Change Course":
https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/2011-climate-change-course
<https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/2011-climate-change-course>
):

2000: 555 (Domestic) + 505 (coal exports) + 17 (LNG exports) = 1,077.

2009: 600 (Domestic) + 784 (coal exports) + 31 (LNG exports) = 1,415.

2010: 578 (Domestic) + 803 (coal exports) + 34 (LNG exports) = 1,415.

2020: 621 (Domestic) + 1,039 (black coal exports) + 80 (LNG exports) +
59 (brown coal exports) = 1,799.

2050: 527 (Domestic) + 2902 (coal exports) + 1,061 (LNG exports) =
4,490.

In 2009 the German Advisory Council on Climate Change (WBGU;
Wissenshaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale
Umweltveränderungen) determined that for a 75% chance of avoiding a 2
degree C temperature rise, the World must pollute less than 600 Gt CO2
(600 billion tonnes CO2) between 2010 and essentially zero emissions in
2050. Unfortunately Australia (through disproportionately huge annual
fossil fuel burning and exports) had already used its  "fair
share" of this terminal greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution budget and is
now stealing the entitlement of impoverished countries  like Somalia and
Bangladesh with very low annual per capita GHG pollution (see
"Shocking analysis by country of years left to zero emissions",
Green Blog, 1 August 2011:

http://www.green-blog.org/2011/08/01/shocking-analysis-by-country-of-yea\
rs-left-to-zero-emissions/
<http://www.green-blog.org/2011/08/01/shocking-analysis-by-country-of-ye\
ars-left-to-zero-emissions/>  ).

Dr Gideon Polya, Melbourne.



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

Medical professors David Shearman and Linda Selvey have published an
article on The Conversation about deaths due to carbon burning
pollutants and entitled "Something in the air: time for independent
testing in coal areas":
https://theconversation.edu.au/something-in-the-air-time-for-independent\
-testing-in-coal-areas-5763
<https://theconversation.edu.au/something-in-the-air-time-for-independen\
t-testing-in-coal-areas-5763>  .

Key quotes: "Tens of thousands of Australians live and work close to
coal-fired power plants. The cocktail of gaseous and particulate
pollutants arising from coal power generation is injurious to human
health. All are associated with an increased risk of heart attack and
stroke in the days after exposure and subsequently with the development
of chronic cardiopulmonary diseases… There is no safe level for
particulate pollution. The burden of disease is proportional to the
level of exposure. These findings are the same in all communities
throughout the world… In the US, coal combustion contributes to
asthma, cancer, heart disease and stroke and it interferes with lung
development and compromises intellectual capacity; 50,000 deaths each
year are attributed to pollution from power plants… In the US it has
been estimated that if the cost of disease resulting from coal was paid
for by the coal and power industries it would almost double the cost of
electricity. Doctors and health services promote the concept that
"prevention is better than cure", so why does society not act to
prevent this scourge?"

I posted  the following pertinent comments  on the article:
"Excellent article, a key part being "In the US it has been
estimated that if the cost of disease resulting from coal was paid for
by the coal and power industries it would almost double the cost of
electricity." An Ontario (Canada) Government-commissioned study that
found that taking environmental impacts and human deaths into account
results in a "true cost" of coal -based power in Ontario that is 4-5
times higher than the "market price" (see Paul Gipe, "Ontario study
identifies social costs of coal-fired power plants", EV World, :
http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=8836
<http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=8836>  .).

Simple translating of Canadian and New Zealand data to Australia
provides estimates that Australians deaths from carbon burning
pollutants each year total 2,200 from vehicles, 4,600 from coal burning
for electricity and 2,800 from other carbon burning, for a total of
about 10,000 carbon burning-related deaths annually (excluding
pollutants from bushfires). At a "value of a statistical life" (VOSL) of
$7.6 million per person ($73 billion pa for Australian carbon
burning-related deaths) and $9 billion pa in other fossil fuel
subsidies, the minimum Carbon Price to cover carbon burning-derived
deaths and carbon burning subsidies is $554 per tonne of carbon as
compared to the best political offer yet of $23 per tonne of carbon (see
"2011. Australian carbon burning-related deaths and carbon burning
subsidies", Yarra Valley Climate Action Group:
https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/2011-carbon-\
burning
<https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/2011-carbon\
-burning>  ) .

This is ignored in look-the-other-way-Australia in which 66,000
Australians are estimated to die preventably each year, the breakdown
being hospital adverse events (18,000), smoking (15,500), carbon-burning
pollution-derived deaths (10,000), Indigenous Australian avoidable
deaths (9,000), obesity-related deaths (6,000), alcohol-related deaths
(3,000), suicides (2,100), road deaths (1,400), opiate drug-related
deaths due to US Alliance restoration of the Taliban-destroyed Afghan
opium industry (360) and homicides (300, with about 40% of victims being
female) (see Gideon Polya, "Why PM Julia Gillard Must Go: 66,000
Preventable Australian Deaths Annually", Countercurrents, 21 February
2012:
http://digg.com/newsbar/topnews/why_pm_julia_gillard_must_go_66_000_prev\
entable_australian_deaths_annually
<http://digg.com/newsbar/topnews/why_pm_julia_gillard_must_go_66_000_pre\
ventable_australian_deaths_annually>  ).

Dr Gideon Polya, Melbourne



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

Economist Dr Colin Hunt (University of Queensland) has written an
article on The Conversation arguing for the adoption of nuclear power to
"tackle climate change". The article is entitled "Don't
dismiss nuclear, whatever the political difficulties" :
https://theconversation.edu.au/dont-dismiss-nuclear-whatever-the-politic\
al-difficulties-5658
<https://theconversation.edu.au/dont-dismiss-nuclear-whatever-the-politi\
cal-difficulties-5658>  .

Unfortunately this economist  ignores the science-based
"difficulties"  that apart from the security, safety, nuclear
weapons-related, terrorism-related, cost, non-renewability  and waste
storage problems, the nuclear option in the context of an existing
carbon economy is a major CO2 polluter.

I sent the following comments on the article to this effect: "Not
mentioned in this article or the discussion is the reality that in the
context of an existing carbon burning-based economy, the overall nuclear
cycle - from mining the uranium or thorium ores to safely burying the
radioactive waste - generates a huge amount of carbon dioxide (CO2),
this being complicated by the non-renewability and declining quality of
the ore used.

Thus Dr Mark Diesendorf (UNSW): "Current reserves of high-grade uranium
ore will only last several decades at current usage rate. Once they are
used up, low-grade ore will have to be used. This means that, to produce
1 kg of yellowcake, 10 tonnes or more of rock will have to be mined and
milled, using fossil fuels. Under these circumstances, the CO2 emissions
from the nuclear fuel chain will be comparable with those of an
equivalent combined-cycle gas-fired power station. Government Ministers
and nuclear experts have admitted that Australia's first nuclear power
station and associated infrastructure would take 15 years to construct
(assuming no public opposition).
Therefore, based on existing technology, nuclear power is neither a
short-term nor a long-term solution to global warming." (see, Dr Mark
Diesendorf, "Opinion: Greenhouse solution myth, fallacy & spin", UNSW:
http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/opinion-greenhouse-solution-myth-fallacy-\
spin/
<http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/opinion-greenhouse-solution-myth-fallacy\
-spin/>  ).

Dr Gideon Polya, Melbourne.



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

On 19 March 2012 Adam Morton published a key article in The Age On-line
National Times about climate criminal Australia's failure to meet
the climate change challenge and entitled "Australia fails carbon
test" (see:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/australia-fails-carbon-t\
est-20120318-1vdmd.html
<http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/australia-fails-carbon-\
test-20120318-1vdmd.html>  ) .

Key quote: "Australia's economy is less equipped to deal with a
low carbon emissions world than it was nearly two decades ago, an
international study has found.

The study, backed by think tank the Climate Institute and multinational
GE, found that since 1995, Australia's dependence on polluting
activities had grown relative to almost every other major economy.

The study ranked Australia 16th out of 19 countries in being ready to
deal with a low-carbon world — ahead of just India, Indonesia and
Saudi Arabia.

The rankings are based on 19 measures, including emissions growth,
energy generation, export industries, transport and investment in clean
technology."



The Age kindly published my following comments on the article (for your
convenience I have inserted reference links):



"There is another even more exacting carbon test that Australia has
failed and that is "years left to attain zero emissions".



Thus in 2009 the WBGU, which advises the German Government on climate
change, estimated that for a 75% chance of avoiding a disastrous 2
degree Centigrade temperature rise (EU policy), the World can emit no
more than 600 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) between 2010 and
zero emissions in 2050.



Australia is a World leader in annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG)
pollution and its  domestic plus exported greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution
is so high that it had used up its "fair share" of the World's terminal
GHG pollution budget by mid-2011 and is now stealing the entitlement of
all other countries, including impoverished, low pollution countries
like Somalia and Bangladesh (for details Google "shocking analysis by
country":
http://www.green-blog.org/2011/08/01/shocking-analysis-by-country-of-yea\
rs-left-to-zero-emissions/
<http://www.green-blog.org/2011/08/01/shocking-analysis-by-country-of-ye\
ars-left-to-zero-emissions/>  ).



Further, contrary to the utterly false Gillard Labor Government  claim
that it is "tackling climate change"  for a "clean energy future",
according to Treasury and ABARE data Australia's annual domestic plus
exported GHG pollution under Labor's deceptive Carbon Tax-ETS will
increase 1.7-fold by 2020 and 4.4-fold by 2050 relative  that in 2000
(for details Google "2011 climate change course":
http://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/2011-climate-change-course
<http://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/2011-climate-change-course>
)."



Dr Gideon Polya, Melbourne.



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

On 21 March 2012 the Age On-line National Times section published an
article on the latest OECD response to the worsening climate crisis  by
The Age  economics editor Ross Gittins and entitled "The human cost
of inaction incalculable":
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/human-cost-of-inaction-incalcu\
lable-20120320-1vhrv.html
<http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/human-cost-of-inaction-incalc\
ulable-20120320-1vhrv.html>  .



Key quotes: "Do you ever wonder how the environment - the global
ecosystem - will cope with the continuing growth in the world population
plus the rapid economic development of China, India and various other
''emerging economies''? I do. And it's not a comforting thought. But now
that reputable and highly orthodox outfit the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development has attempted to think it through
systematically. In its report Environmental Outlook to 2050, it projects
existing socio-economic trends for 40 years, assuming no new policies to
counter environmental problems… The United Nations is projecting
further population growth of 2 billion by 2050. Cities are likely to
absorb this growth. By 2050, nearly 70 per cent of the world population
is projected to be living in urban areas. ''This will magnify challenges
such as air pollution, transport congestion, and the management of waste
and water in slums, with serious consequences for human health"
… with the global average temperature increasing by 3 to 6 degrees
by the end of the century.'' A temperature increase of more than 2
degrees would alter precipitation patterns, increase glacier and
permafrost melt, drive sea-level rise, worsen the intensity and
frequency of extreme weather events such as heat waves, floods and
hurricanes, and become the greatest driver of biodiversity loss"…
With no policy change, continued degradation and erosion of natural
environmental capital could be expected, ''with the risk of irreversible
changes that could endanger two centuries of rising living standards''.
For openers, the cost of inaction on climate change could lead to a
permanent loss of more than 14 per cent in average world consumption per
person."



The Age kindly published my following comments on the article uncensored
(I have added links for your convenience) : "A temperature increase
of + 0.8°C is already associated with increased extreme weather
events,  glacier melting, sea level rise, ocean warming, ocean
acidification and a species extinction rate which is 100-1,000 times
greater than normal.



The CSIRO and the Australia Bureau of Meteorology have just released
their "State of the Climate 2012"
(http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Climate/Understanding/State-of-the-Climate\
-2012.aspx
<http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Climate/Understanding/State-of-the-Climate\
-2012.aspx>  ) report that sets out the remorselessly increasing
greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution of the atmosphere (climate change
inaction) and states that Australian average temperatures are projected
to rise by up to 5.0°C by 2070.



Australia is a world leader in annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG)
pollution and in climate change inaction. Pro-coal, pro-gas Australian
PM Julia Gillard has an appalling record of climate change inaction
falsely dressed up as the opposite. The most outrageous untruth of
Gillard Labor is that it is "tackling climate change" for a
"clean energy future" – but in reality its policies in 16
major areas involve increasing Australia's already
disproportionately high GHG pollution (for detailed analysis Google
"Australian PM Julia Gillard's appalling record of climate
change inaction")
(http://www.green-blog.org/2012/03/08/australian-pm-julia-gillards-appal\
ling-record-of-climate-change-inaction/
<http://www.green-blog.org/2012/03/08/australian-pm-julia-gillards-appal\
ling-record-of-climate-change-inaction/>  ) .



The WBGU which advises the German Government on climate change says the
World must emit no more than 600 billion tonnes of CO2 between 2010 and
zero emissions in 2050. Australia had already used up its "fair share"
of this terminal GHG pollution budget by mid-2011,"



and my further comments:

"The OECD evidently understates the disastrous consequences of
unaddressed climate change. Thus both Dr James Lovelock FRS (Gaia
hypothesis; atmospheric gas analysis instrumentation) and Professor
Kevin Anderson ( Deputy Director, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change
Research, University of Manchester, UK) have estimated that only about
0.5 billion people will survive this century due to unaddressed,
man-made global warming (for details Google "Climate Genocide")
(https://sites.google.com/site/climategenocide/
<https://sites.google.com/site/climategenocide/>  ) .

This means that about 10 billion people will perish this century due to
climate change inaction or an average of 100 million per year. Already
at a temperature increase of + 0.8°C about 18 million people die
avoidably each year from deprivation and deprivation-exacerbated disease
that is increasingly impacted by man-made climate change (for detailed
analysis see "Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950")
(http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com.au/
<http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com.au/>  )."



Dr Gideon Polya, Melbourne.



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

Hi friends,

Just uploaded for your interest and inspiration is the latest issue of Bobbing
Around.
http://mudsmith.net/bobbing11-6.html

This issue features the best cartoon Alfredo Zotti and I have collaborated on so
far, and several very timely requests for help.

Enjoy,
Bob



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

On 22 March 2012 The Age On-line National Times published an article by
Josh Gordon about Victorian premier Baillieu's (Faillieu's)
plans for expansion of Victorian Brown coal exploitation and entitled
"The dirt on brown coal's grubby history":
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/the-dirt-on-brown-coals-grubby\
-history-20120321-1vk1k.html
<http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/the-dirt-on-brown-coals-grubb\
y-history-20120321-1vk1k.html>  .



Key quotes: "Billions of investment dollars may be flowing to the
resource states of Western  Australia and Queensland, but the Baillieu
government reckons Victoria is the real ''energy hub'' of the nation.
Why? Because within the Latrobe Valley lies at least 430 billion tonnes
of brown coal. It represents, as Energy Minister Michael O'Brien points
out, potentially more energy than that within the entire north-west
shelf… If carbon dioxide  were not such a problem, Victoria would
now be in an enviable position. Yet brown coal is about three times more
greenhouse intensive per kilowatt hour of electricity than, say, natural
gas. Abundant it may be, but clean it is not. The state government -
under increasing political and financial pressure as our economy slips -
hopes that the private sector will stump up the investment and
technology needed to convert brown coal into a commercially and
environmentally viable form… The best case scenario for the people
of the Latrobe  Valley is that the private sector will find a
commercially viable method of transforming one of the world's dirtiest
energy sources into a clean form. But if past experience is any guide,
they would be unwise to count on it."



The Age has an appalling record of censorship of informed, credentialled
views it does not want its readers to read or think  about (see
"Censorship by The Age":
https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammediacensorship/censorship-by-th\
e-age
<https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammediacensorship/censorship-by-t\
he-age>   and http://agecensors.blogspot.com/
<http://agecensors.blogspot.com/>  ) and accordingly completely censored
out my first comment on the article. However I persisted and the The Age
finally published the following acutely germane comment:

"Edited & re-submitted: an omission from this history of Victorian
brown coal was that one of PM Julia Gillard's first acts after the June
23/24 2010 Coup was to approve an export deal for Victorian dried brown
coal between Melbourne company Environmental Clean Technologies and
Vietnamese company TinCom that was expected to reach 20 million tonnes
per year (reported by The Age, 26 June 2010; Google "Greens slam Gillard
on brown coal export deal").

Combustion of all Victorian brown coal would be a disaster for the
planet and any exploitation of these deposits should cease.

In 2009 the WBGU which advises the German Government on climate change
estimated that for a 75% chance of avoiding a disastrous 2C temperature
rise (EU policy) the World must emit no more than 600 billion tonnes of
carbon dioxide (CO2) between 2010 and zero emissions in 2050.
Australia's domestic plus exported greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution is so
high that it had already used up its "fair share" of this terminal GHG
pollution budget by mid-2011.

The amount of CO2 released from combustion of 430 billion tonnes of
brown coal = 430 billion tonnes coal x (0.33 tonnes carbon/tonne brown
coal) x (44 tonnes CO2 / 12 tonnes carbon) = 520 billion tonnes CO2 (87%
of the world's terminal CO2 pollution budget)."



Please tell everyone you know to sign the Environment Victoria petition
against new coal:
http://environmentvictoria.org.au/say-no-way-to-new-coal
<http://environmentvictoria.org.au/say-no-way-to-new-coal>  .



Dr Gideon Polya, Melbourne.



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

On 23 March 2012 The Age On-line national Times published an article by
its Economics Editor Tim Colebatch about the latest $0.3 billion
Government subsidy for the General Motors  Holden car manufacture and
entitled "It'd be  a brave PM who pulled the plug on Holden"
( see:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/itd-be-a-brave-pm-who-pulled-t\
he-plug-on-holden-20120322-1vmxw.html
<http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/itd-be-a-brave-pm-who-pulled-\
the-plug-on-holden-20120322-1vmxw.html>  ).



Key quotes: "You can have a car industry with taxpayer subsidies. Or
you can save taxpayers' money and scrap your car industry. There are
good arguments for either policy, but you can't have a car industry
without subsidies."



The Age (Melbourne) regularly  censors out informed, credentialled,
non-anonymous comments on climate change (and on the human cost of war)
and in this instance  repeatedly censored out my 2 proffered comments on
the article, the second being a slightly edited version of the first.



Censored comment #1.



"Australia clearly needs a sophisticated car industry as the basis
of a sophisticated manufacturing industry. However this $300 million
investment into carbon -burning cars is an immense wasted opportunity -
the money should have been spent on electric cars and renewable energy.



Pro-coal, pro-gas Gillard Labor already spends $12 billion each year on
subsidies for fossil fuel burning (according  to the  ACF)  and this
simply adds another $0.3 billion to the carbon burning bonfire.



Australia is a world leader in annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG)
pollution and pro-coal, pro-gas Australian PM Julia Gillard has an
appalling record of climate change inaction falsely dressed up as the
opposite. The biggest and most outrageous untruth of Gillard Labor is
that it is "tackling climate change" . For a detailed analysis
of 16 areas in which Gillard Labor's Carbon Tax-ETS will INCREASE
greenhouse gas pollution simply Google "Australian PM Julia
Gillard's appalling record of climate change inaction."



Utterly betrayed pro-environment and pro-science Labor voters will vote
1 Green and put Labor last until it gives up its terracidal fossil fuel
burning  policies."





Censored comment #2.



"Edited & re-submitted: Australia clearly needs a car industry as
the fundamental basis of a sophisticated manufacturing industry. However
this $300 million investment into carbon -burning cars is an immense
wasted opportunity - the money should have been spent on electric cars
and renewable energy.



Pro-coal, pro-gas Gillard Labor already spends $12 billion each year on
subsidies for fossil fuel burning (according  to the  ACF)  and this
simply adds another $0.3 billion to the carbon burning bonfire.



Australia is a world leader in annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG)
pollution and pro-coal, pro-gas Australian PM Julia Gillard has an
appalling record of climate change inaction falsely dressed up as the
opposite. The biggest and most outrageous untruth of Gillard Labor is
that it is "tackling climate change" . For a detailed analysis
of 16 areas in which Gillard Labor's Carbon Tax-ETS will INCREASE
greenhouse gas pollution simply Google "Australian PM Julia
Gillard's appalling record of climate change inaction."



Utterly betrayed pro-environment and pro-science Labor voters will vote
1 Green and put Labor last until it gives up its fossil fuel burning
policies. "

The pro-environment Australian Greens have already protested that these
subsidies should have been used to advance electric cars.  Thus Greens
MP Adam Bandt: ""If we are to put further public money into this
industry it must come on the condition that the industry begins
switching to electric. We can do it. The technology is available now.
People need to have confidence that they can drive their electric cars
over a certain range and know there's going to be a charging point
either at the supermarket or some other place." (see "The Greens
want taxpayer funding for Holden to drive the production to electric
vehicles", The Australian, 22 March 2012:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/the-opposition-is-seeki\
ng-a-cost-benefit-analysis-on-a-planned-200-million-subsidy-for-holden/s\
tory-fn59niix-1226306958017
<http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/the-opposition-is-seek\
ing-a-cost-benefit-analysis-on-a-planned-200-million-subsidy-for-holden/\
story-fn59niix-1226306958017>  ).

The Age again reveals itself as a neocon rag that remorselessly censors
informed, credentialed, non-anonymous comments that it evidently regards
as containing things that it does not want its readers to read, know or
think about (see "Censorship by The Age":
https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammediacensorship/censorship-by-th\
e-age
<https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammediacensorship/censorship-by-t\
he-age>  and http://agecensors.blogspot.com/
<http://agecensors.blogspot.com/>  . Censorship sabotages rational risk
management that is crucial for societal safety. Sensible people advocate
that we "Boycott Murdoch Media" for its appalling reportage over
man-made climate change (see "Boycott Murdoch Media":
https://sites.google.com/site/boycottmurdochmedia/
<https://sites.google.com/site/boycottmurdochmedia/>  ) and the
ostensibly more liberal Fairfax media may well deserve the same
treatment for their anti-science censorship.



Dr Gideon Polya,  Melbourne.



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

On 23 March 2012 The Conversation published an important article on
man-made global warming by paleo-climatologist and earth scientist Dr
Andrew Glikson (Honorary Professor at the Geothermal Energy Centre of
Excellence, The University of Queensland, and a Visiting Fellow at the
Australian National University) which is entitled "On Arctic sea ice
melt and coal mine canaries":
https://theconversation.edu.au/on-arctic-sea-ice-melt-and-coal-mine-cana\
ries-5967
<https://theconversation.edu.au/on-arctic-sea-ice-melt-and-coal-mine-can\
aries-5967>  .



The article is supported by clear figures showing the remorseless
increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2)  and nitrous oxide (N2O),
the alarming resumption of an increase in atmospheric methane (CH4) and
an accelerating  loss of Arctic summer sea ice (about 70% has gone over
the last 4 decades).



Key quotes:  "Despite peak global temperatures in 2005 and 2010
(unprecedented in the instrumental record), a recent sharp plunge in
volume of the Arctic Sea ice and a spate of extreme weather events, coal
mining, coal exports and carbon emissions continue to grow, overwhelming
any mitigation attempted by schemes such as the Australian carbon
price… If local emissions for 2007 (540 MtCO₂ = 147 MtCarbon)
(excluding land use-related carbon loss) are combined with 2007
emissions from Australian coal exports (262*0.8 = 210 MtCarbon) (Table 8
<https://theconversation.edu.au/adl.brs.gov.au/data/warehouse/pe_abare99\
001318/pc13548.pdf> ), the total of ~357 MtCarbon constitutes ~4.5
percent of 2007 global emission of ~7900 MtCarbon
<http://photos.mongabay.com/09/forecast_co2.jpg> . Quadrupling
Australia's coal exports <http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/50309>
would increase Australia's total direct and indirect emissions to
over 1 billion tons (1 GtCarbon)… Global emissions since 1750,
totalling 352,000 MtCarbon from combustion and 152,000 MtCarbon from
land clearing, have driven atmospheric CO₂ levels to 393 pp
<http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/> m (see figure 5), the
highest it has been since the Pliocene some 3 million years ago. Current
CO₂ rise rates near 2 ppm CO₂/year are unprecedented in
the last 65 million years of geological history."



The Conversation kindly published my following comments on this
excellent article by Professor Glikson: "Excellent article by Dr
Andrew Glikson but his clear message in the public interest has
inevitably been obfuscated by non-climate scientist climate change
denialism (if such people were to ignorantly, publicly and passionately
contradict Bureau of Meteorology warnings on a future repeat of Black
Saturday I suspect they would get short shrift from an indignant and
endangered public).

Some key points below relating to Dr Glikson's cogent and expert
analysis.

1. Australia has 22 x100/7000 = 0.3% of the World's population but in
2007 Australia's Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution was 4.5% of the
World's total. Arthur Calwell's outrageous "Two Wongs do not make a
White" (1947) has now escalated to a climate racist "15 non-Aussies
don't equate to 1 Aussie".

2. In 2009 the WBGU that advises the German Government on climate change
estimated that for a 75% chance of avoiding a disastrous 2C temperature
rise the World can emit no more than 600 Gt (billion tonnes) of CO2
between 2010 and zero emissions in 2050. Australia's share is 22 x
600/7000 = 1.886 Gt CO2 = 1,886 Mt CO2. However in 2010 Australia's
annual Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution was about 1,415 Mt, this
leaving Australia 1,886/1,415 = 1.3 years to get to zero emissionsi.e.
Australia had used up its "fair share" of this terminal global GHG
pollution budget by mid-2011 and is now stealing the entitlement of all
other countries, and notably of impoverished nations like Somalia and
Bangladesh. More climate racism.

3. Under Gillard Labor's Carbon Tax-ETS Australia's Domestic plus
Exported GHG pollution will be 1.7 times greater in 2020 and 4.2 times
greater in 2050 than that in 2000 (assuming ABARE estimates of a 2.4% pa
increase in coal exports and a 9% pa increase in LNG exports; see 2011
Climate Change Course:
https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/2011-climate-change-course
<https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/2011-climate-change-course>
). Gillard Labor's claim to be "tackling climate change" for a "clean
energy future" is egregiously false (see "Australian PM Julia
Gillard's appalling record of climate change inaction":
http://www.green-blog.org/2012/03/08/australian-pm-julia-gillards-appall\
ing-record-of-climate-change-inaction/
<http://www.green-blog.org/2012/03/08/australian-pm-julia-gillards-appal\
ling-record-of-climate-change-inaction/>  ).

4.The recent resumption of an increase in atmospheric methane (CH4) is
scary if it substantially derives from release from CH4-H2O clathrates
in the Arctic Tundra. To compound this further, Dr Drew Shindell and
colleagues at NASA's GISS have recently found that CH4 is 105 times
worse than CO2 as a GHG on a 20 year time scale and with aerosol impacts
considered (see Drew T. Shindell et al., "Improved Attribution of
Climate Forcing to Emissions", Science, 30 October 2009:
Vol. 326 no. 5953 pp. 716-718:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5953/716
<http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5953/716>  ).

A question for Dr Glikson: what has been the absolute decrease in the
amount of Arctic summer sea ice? [his answer suggested that about 70%
has gone]. "

Dr Gideon Polya, Melbourne



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

On 27 March 2012 The Age On-line reported that the Baillieu Liberal
Party-National Party Coalition Government of Victoria, Australia, had
decoded to scrap Victoria's plan to cut greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions by 20% by 2020:  "A plan to cut Victoria's greenhouse
gas emissions by 20 per cent over the next decade is set to be dumped by
the Baillieu government on the basis that it would merely lighten the
load imposed on other states. An independent review of the state's
key climate change laws, to be released today, has found ``no
compelling case'' to keep the target following the introduction of
the Commonwealth's minimum target to cut emissions by 5 per cent, to
be mainly achieved through Labor's carbon tax" (see Carbon
target scrapped}, The Age On-line, 27 March 2012:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/carbon-target-scrapped-2\
0120326-1vust.html
<http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/carbon-target-scrapped-\
20120326-1vust.html>  ) .

The Age kindly published my following comments on the article:

"The pro-coal, pro-gas, anti-environment Brumby Labor Government
thoroughly deserved to be kicked out but its successor the pro-coal,
pro-gas, anti-environment Baillieu Coalition Government is even worse
and deserves the same fate even more so under the fundamental voter
strategy of  "Punish the incompetent incumbent".

The anti-environment Baillieu  (Fail you) Government:

   1.  allowed cattle into the Alpine National Park,

2. sabotaged Victoria's wind and solar energy industries,

3. backs logging of Victoria's  native forests (the best forest carbon
sinks in the world),

4. is promoting massive expansion of exploitation of Victoria's 430
billion tonnes of brown coal (complete combustion would yield 520
billion tonnes of CO2 or 87% of the global terminal budget of 600
billion tonnes of CO2 that can be emitted before zero emissions in
2050),

5. backs and subsidizes expansion of dirty gas and dirty coal burning
for power,

6. now scraps a "20% off greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution by 2020" target,
and

7. ignores the shocking reality that Victoria is among the worst annual
per capita GHG polluters in the world."

In 2009 the  WBGU which advises the German Government on climate change
estimated that for a  75% chance of avoiding a disastrous 2C temperature
rise (EU policy) the World  must emit no more than 600 billion tonnes of
carbon dioxide (CO2) between 2010  and zero emissions in 2050.
Australia's domestic plus exported  greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution is so
high that it had already used up its "fair  share" of this terminal GHG
pollution budget by  mid-2011 and is now stealing the entitlement of all
other countries, including  impoverished and global warming threatened
countries like Somalia and Bangladesh (see Gideon Polya, "Shocking
analysis by country of years left to zero emissions", Green Blog, 1
August 2011:
http://www.green-blog.org/2011/08/01/shocking-analysis-by-country-of-yea\
rs-left-to-zero-emissions/
<http://www.green-blog.org/2011/08/01/shocking-analysis-by-country-of-ye\
ars-left-to-zero-emissions/>   and Gideon Polya  "2011 Climate
Change Course', 300.org:
https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/2011-climate-change-course
<https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/2011-climate-change-course>
).

Victoria, like the  rest of Australia, is committed to remorselessly
increasing GHG pollution despite the fact that Victoria is the dirtiest
state in one of the worst GHG polluting countries in the World. Thus
"annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution" in units of
"tonnes CO2-equivalent per person per year" (2005-2008 data) is
0.9 (Bangladesh), 0.9 (Pakistan), 2.2 (India), less than 3 (many African
and Island countries), 3.2 (the Developing World), 5.5 (China), 6.7 (the
World), 11 (Europe), 16 (the Developed World), 27 (the US) and 30
(Australia; or 64 in 2010 if Australia's huge Exported CO2 pollution
is included).



Noting that the world population is expected to reach 9.5 billion by
2050 (UN Population Division) , it is estimated that the world  is
facing a worsening  Climate Genocide involving deaths of 10 billion
people this century, this including roughly twice the present population
of particular mainly non-European groups, specifically 6 billion under-5
year old infants, 3 billion Muslims in a terminal Muslim Holocaust, 2
billion Indians, 1.3 billion non-Arab Africans, 0.5 billion Bengalis,
0.3 billion Pakistanis and 0.3 billion Bangladeshis. (see "Climate
Genocide: https://sites.google.com/site/climategenocide/
<https://sites.google.com/site/climategenocide/>  ).


What can decent people do? Decent people must (a) inform everyone they
can and (b) urge international action to force climate criminal ,
climate racist Australia to get to zero emissions. Such actions might
include, sanctions, boycotts, green tariffs, sporting boycotts ,
International Court of Justice litigations and International Criminal
Court prosecutions.


Dr Gideon Polya, Melbourne.


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

Queensland lurches to the right...

[roeoz] Newman takes aim at climate and renewables

It appears that this is entirely consistent with conservative governments
now throughout the world...

their (unstated) assertions are

1) Anthropogenic Global Warming has not been proven - so we can ignore it
-"it's part of a natural cycle".
2) We need to grow, as growth is the only true saviour of our cultures.
3) Environment ...what's that??

so what do we do?? - in a world that is increasingly out-of-control?

I am hoping that a couple of limiting actions will start - and I guess a
(petroleum driven) war in the Gulf may do the job (albeit messily). - and a
collapse in China's over-inflated economy wouldn't hurt either.. It seems
that imposed economic restraints are the only signals our fearless leaders
will attend to.. what's the odd typhoon,hurricane or cyclone - let alone
earthquake and tsunami... ??

hey - who gives a damn about the earth anyway - trash it - the universe is
endless....we can go anywhere... hic!

Oh - and we accept brown paper bags with monetary contributions - don't
expect a receipt..

H


thanks Meteorite Debris <epicurus@...>

It starts. The great roll back to the Joh days.   Peter
http://tinyurl.com/cdosus3



Newman takes aim at climate and renewables

  By Giles Parkinson on  27 March 2012

Newly elected Queensland Premier Campbell Newman is expected to move
quickly  to disband the state’s climate change and renewable energy
programs, raising  questions about whether the state's $75 million
contribution to the Solar Dawn  project will remain intact.

Newman has already replaced the head of Premier and Cabinet John Bradley
with  investment banker Jon Grayson, who cites the biggest transaction on
his CV as  the successful bid for the Dalrymple Coal Terminal when he was
head of Prime  Infrastructure.

The Department of Environment and Resource Management is to be split, with
the word environment eviscerated and two new departments to emerge -
Resource  Management, and Mining and Energy. The department includes the
office of climate  change, headed by Greg Withers, the husband of ousted
premier Anna Bligh, which  also faces an uncertain future.

According to its policy document released a day before the election, the
Newman government plans to abolish eight of Labor's environmental funds,
including the solar flagships program, the $300 million climate change fund
and  the $50 million renewable energy fund.

The other funds identified include Queensland Smart Energy Savings Fund,
the  Queensland Future Growth Fund, the Solar Initiatives Package, the
Waste  Avoidance and Resource Efficiency Fund and Local Government
Sustainable Future  Fund

The document described the schemes as "redundant and a waste of taxpayer"s
money in light of the federal government's mandated Renewable Energy Target
and  the carbon tax." And, therefore, any state-based scheme will simply
mean  Queenslanders will be paying for other states to emit more" the
document said.  The carbon schemes are a "luxury Queensland just can't
afford."

And it quoted the Productivity Commission's submission to the Garnaut
Climate  Change Review, saying an "effective ETS, much of the current
patchwork of  climate change policies will become redundant and there will
only be a residual  role for state, territory and local government
initiatives." Garnaut said the  same thing, but put the emphasis on the
caveat word "effective'.

It is not clear whether the closure means no new spending or whether money
already allocated or committed, such as the solar flagships contribution,
will  be repatriated. The renewable energy fund, for instance, included $9
millon  for Mackay Sugar's co-generation projet, $15 million to the
University of  Queensland geothermal energy’'s centre of excellence, up to
$4.3 million for the  new geothermal power station at Birdsville. Not all
of that has been spent.

The impact of withdrawing the $75 million funding from Solar Dawn is also
not  clear, as some of it may have been designed to support research
initiatives,  including a $60 million research program at the University of
Queensland. Solar  Dawn failed to get a power purchase agreement and
financing in place in time to  meet a December deadline to access $465
million in federal funding, although it  won a six month extension.

A statement from the company said it "appreciated the commitment of the
State  of Queensland which has signed a $75 million conditional agreement
with Solar  Dawn for project assistance" and it looked forward to
"continuing its  relationship with the government" and briefing personnel
on progress in the  project.

The Victorian conservative government, meanwhile, has axed the 20 per cent
emissions abatement target set by its Labor predecessor, despite supporting
it  while in Opposition.

The state government came under huge pressure to abandon the target, saying
it placed an unnecessary burden on Victorian industry. Opponents included
the  usual industry organizations and individual companies such as Alcoa,
Alinta and  Exxon Mobil.

Alcoa's submission included a boast about how it had invested heavily to
reduce its emissions and improve the efficiency of its aluminium plants to
gain  a competitive advantage. It apparently did not see the irony in
pointing out the  "inefficiencies and higher costs" involved if Victoria
sought a similar  advantage for its economy.

The decision by the Victorian government is the latest in a series of moves
which has seen it halt feed-in-tariffs, impose strict planning restrictions
on  wind farm developments, and announce its intention to reopen tenders
for more  brown coal extraction. On the plus side it has doubled the
state’s energy  efficiency target, and promised up to $25 million for a
geothermal project need  Geelong.

In NSW, meanwhile, the new coalition state government has also brought its
solar tariff to an abrupt end, and is proposing similarly restrictive
planning  guidelines on wind farms. Queensland hasn’t needed to bother
about that because  there are only 12MW of wind turbines in the state in
any case. (Newman has,  however, vowed tor retain the state's feed in
tariff, which because it was  properly structured in the first place, with
a net tariff rather than a gross,  has been the most successful and cost
effective tariff in the country.

The message from all three Conservative governments is that climate change
action and renewable energy development is a national issue and not a state
one.  None of the states seem interested in gaining an advantage, or
attracting  investment, at the expense of the other. Does this happen in
any other  industry?

As acting Greens leader Senator Christine Milne said today, this now
increases pressure on Tony Abbott to deliver on his "bipartisan" commitment
to  reduce the country's emissions by 5 per cent by 2020, without a price
on carbon  - a policy that looks increasingly fragile following the CSIRO’s
recent dampener  on the coalition's plan to achieve its abatement through
carbon farming  initiatives.

On  28 March 2012 The Age On-line National Times published an  article
on the climate change failure of the Baillieu Coalition Victorian State
Government by Michael Power (a lawyer with the Environment Defenders
Office, Victoria, Australia) and entitled "Victoria passes the buck
on carbon":
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/victoria-passes-the-buck-on-ca\
rbon-20120327-1vwf9.html
<http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/victoria-passes-the-buck-on-c\
arbon-20120327-1vwf9.html>  .



Key quotes: "The Baillieu backflip on emissions reductions is a
dereliction of duty. The Victorian government this week confirmed what
many have suspected - that it does not view climate change as its
problem. By abandoning the 20 per cent target for reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions it took to the 2010 election, and winding back
the Climate Change Act, the government has formally vacated the climate
change policy space."



The Age On-line National Times kindly published the following comment by
me on the article that summarized the major climate change failures of
the Baillieu Government:



"Major climate change failures of the Baillieu Government are listed
below.

1. Cattle introduced into the Alpine National Park.
2. Victoria's wind industry sabotaged by restrictions.
3. Solar energy industry crippled by feed-in restrictions.
4. Continued logging of Victoria's native forests (the best forest
carbon sinks in the world).
5. Urging further exploitation of Victoria's 430 billion tonnes of brown
coal (complete combustion would yield 520 billion tonnes of CO2 or 87%
of the global terminal budget of 600 billion tonnes of CO2 that can be
emitted before zero emissions in 2050).
6. Supports expansion of dirty gas and dirty coal burning for power
(e.g. the HRL proposal).
7. Scrapped the 20% off by 2020 target.
8. Ignores the reality that Victoria is among the worst annual per
capita GHG polluters in the world.
9. Ignores Australia's huge Net Carbon Debt (Net Climate Debt) of 3,630
million tonnes CO2 (World's 6th biggest; Google "Climate Debt, Climate
Credit").
10. Ignores worsening Climate Genocide that is set to kill 10 billion
people this century (Google "Climate Genocide").
11. Ignores an estimated 10,000 Australian carbon burning-related deaths
annually.
12. Australia's fair share of the World's terminal GHG pollution budget
means that it should have reached zero emissions in mid-2011.

Commenter

Dr Gideon Polya

Location

Macleod

Date and time

Mar 28, 2012, 11:19AM".



What an appalling record. We must tell everyone we can.



Dr Gideon Polya, Melbourne.



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

>Dear Friends/Co-sailors,
>
>
>
>Greetings from Water Initiatives Odisha (WIO)!
>
>
>Please find below WIO's latest analysis on the water allocation situation in
the state of Odisha.  This shows how the industries have been favoured at the
cost of agriculture.
>
>
>We have also attached a pdf version of the document.  You can also access it
at the following links:
>
>
>http://climatecrusaders.blogspot.in/2012/03/industry-up-agriculture-down-wio-up\
date.html
>
>
>http://www.scribd.com/doc/87508349/WIO-Update-on-Water-Allocation-to-Industries\
-31st-March-2012
>
>
>Look forward to your comments and support.
>
>
>Thanks and regards,
>
>
>Ranjan Panda
>
>
>=================== 
>
>
>Industry Up, Agriculture Down
>An
agrarian state disobeys its own Water Policy and favours industries at the cost
of agriculture.  Odisha’s water
management on a wrong path!
>
>
>Agriculture
declines as water to industry increases
>
>
>·         Water allocation to industries from rivers
in Odisha goes up by 224 per cent in just two years
>·         Irrigation coverage of the state has
increased marginally.
>·          Net
sown area has reduced by 4, 38,000 hectares.
>·         The increased allocation of water to
industries deprived at least 1, 68,000 ha of land from irrigation.
> 
>In Odisha net sown areas have come down while irrigation
coverage has marginally increased. This is when the water allocation to
industries has gone up drastically. We at Water Initiatives Odisha (WIO) have
just found it out based on analysis of the recent government statistics.  In a
state, where agriculture is still the
mainstay of the economy and whose water policy prioritizes ‘irrigation’ far
above ‘industries’ this shows how the government is favouring the industries
at
the cost of agriculture.
>
>
>In February this year the Chief Minister of the state
revealed the latest statistics of water allocation to industries.  According to
this data, there are 337
industries which are either drawing water or have been permitted to draw water
from the 11 river basins of the state. 
>
>
>This is a huge increase, almost of about 224 per cent
just in two years! 
>
>
>According to the Department of Water Resources’ Annual
Report 2009-2010, only 86 industries and other establishments had been
allocated water from river basins of the state. 
The total water allocated to the 86 industries and other commercial
establishments as per 2009-2010 annual report was 1993.366 cusecs.  As per the
latest figures, the industrial
allocation has increased to 5102 cusecs. 
Only 286.272 cusecs of this was allocated prior to the formation of the
Water Allocation Committee. 
>
>
>So the water allocation to industries before a decade was
just 286.272, which has now increased to 5102 cusecs, an increase of 17
times! 
>
>
>This only shows how the river basins are at increasing
stress but also irrigation is neglected. 
>
>
>Even as the government went on increasing water allocation
to industries, it failed to provide the necessary irrigation to the
farmers. 
>
>
>During the last decade (2000-01 to 2009-2010), the net
irrigation in Kharif increased by about 29 per cent only, from about 15,90,000
hectare to about 20,59,000 hectare.  The
increase in net irrigation in Rabi during this same period increased by about
45 per cent from about 5, 36,000 hectare to about 9,80,000 hectare. 
>
>
>This marginal increase does not seem to have benefited
farmers of the state at large as the net sown area of the state has decreased
by 4, 38,000 hectares, from 58, 45,000 ha in 2001-02 to 54,07,000 ha in
2010-11. 
>
>
>Agriculture, which provides employment to 60 per cent of the
state’s total workforce, is being deliberately neglected in the state. 
>
>
>While farmers are increasingly abandoning farming and are
crying for ensured irrigation facilities, the increase in water allocation to
industries at the cost of irrigation is unfortunate.  Compared to the huge
employment potential in
the farming sector, heavy industries and mining - the two sectors who are major
beneficiaries of the above increased allocation of water – provide negligible
employment. 
>
>
>Take for example the direct employment generated by heavy
industries such as steel, cement, aluminium, etc.  These projects have provided
employment only
to about 80, 561 people.   Mining, a
major beneficiary of water allocation in the state, provides direct employment
only to 51, 877 people.  In fact the
employment in mining sector is decreasing over the years.  This shows how the
water allocation in the
state is biased towards industries and mining despite of the fact that they
don’t generate benefit to the needy people of the state.  This is mockery of
the State Water Policy.
>
>
>Another startling fact that testifies how the government
neglects agriculture is the increasing barren land in the state. 
>
>
>While a vast chunk of the state is turning barren, the
‘culturable waste land’ and ‘land put to non-agricultural use’
categories
together have increased by a whopping 2, 82,000 ha.  Considering that 1 cusec
of water can provide
irrigation to approximately 35 ha of land, at least 60 per cent of these land
could have been brought into cultivation had the decadal increase in water
allocation to industries would have been used to create irrigation. 
>
>
>This could have saved lakhs of farmers from leaving
farming and would have arrested the degradation process of at least 1, 68,000
ha of land.  The number of cultivators in
the state is sharply falling.  Between
1991 and 2001, as many as 11, 64,000 cultivators had left farming!  The latest
figures are yet to be available
but we are sure it would have been much more heart breaking.
>
>
>Water Initiatives Odisha urges upon the government to
immediately look into this discrimination against irrigation.  Stop favouring
the industries at the
cost of irrigation.
>
>
>For further details, please contact:
>
>
>
>
>Ranjan Panda
>
>
>Convenor, Water Initiatives Odisha (WIO)
>Cell: 94370-50103
>Email: ranjanpanda@...
>======================== 
>
>
>Water Initiatives Odisha (WIO) is a state level coalition of civil
society organisations, farmers, academia, media and other concerned, which has
been working on water, environment and climate change issues in the state for
more than two decades now.
>
>
>

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

In March 2012 I sent a carefully composed letter to Australian MPs and
media about Australia's appalling climate change inaction. As far as
I am aware only one significant medium published this letter, namely the
Green Left Weekly which is outstanding for correct and humane reportage
of important matters. Indeed outstanding expatriate Australian
journalist John Pilger has the stated: "Australia has the most
restrictive media in the western world. Censorship by omission denies
Australians their democratic right to make sense of whole stratas of
political and foreign policy. That's why Green Left Weekly is a beacon,
doing a job of honourable journalism, as an agent of people, not power"
(see: http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/50457
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/50457>   ) .

My letter published by Green Left Weekly is reproduced  below (see
Gideon Polya, "Climate inaction", Letters to the Editor, Green
Left Weekly, 24 March 2012: http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/50457
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/50457>  ):

"Australia is a world leader in annual per capita greenhouse gas
pollution. Pro-coal, pro-gas Australian PM Julia Gillard has an
appalling record of climate change inaction falsely dressed up as the
opposite.

The most outrageous untruth of Gillard Labor is that it is "tackling
climate change" for a "clean energy future" — but in
reality its policies in 16 major areas involve increasing
Australia's already disproportionately high greenhouse gas
pollution. For detailed analysis Google "Australian PM Julia
Gillard's appalling record of climate change inaction".

Thus, under the fraudulent carbon tax-emissions trading system
Australia's domestic greenhouse gas pollution will increase from 578
Mt CO2-e in 2010 to 621 Mt CO2-e in 2020. Most of the claimed "160
million tonnes" of greenhouse gas savings in 2020 will be purchased
overseas and Australia's domestic plus exported greenhouse gas
pollution will be 1.7 times greater in  2020 and 4.2 times greater in
2050 than that in 2000.

Tackling climate change means decreasing greenhouse gas pollution, but
Australia's domestic plus exported greenhouse gas pollution will be
10% bigger in 2013 after six years of Labor than that under the
Coalition in 2007.

Voters must punish Labor for its egregious lying and climate change
inaction.

Dr Gideon Polya,
Macleod, Vic."

The various major areas of the ABC were sent a copy of this letter but
the taxpayer-funded ABC has subsequently published a diametrically
opposite and utterly incorrect view that Australia is actually leading
the world in tackling climate change!

Thus  the respected financial journalist Alan Kohler on the ABC's
The Drum (28 March 2012) stated: "Losing our lead: emissions targets
increase ahead …The idea that Australia is leading the world on
climate change is quickly becoming untrue" (Alan Kohler, "Losing
our lead: emissions targets increase ahead", The Drum, 28 March
2012:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-28/kohler-emissions-targets-increase-\
ahead/3916840
<http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-28/kohler-emissions-targets-increase\
-ahead/3916840>  ). These statements incorrectly assert that Australia
is a world leader in climate change action but that this situation is
changing rapidly and that Australia may shortly  lose this asserted
"lead".

The ABC has been reporting incorrectly on this matter for some time.
Thus in 2007 the ABC reported the then Coalition Federal Government
Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull denying climate change inaction in
an interview: "Well, that's completely untrue. Australia is leading
the world on climate change. Let's go through it. We are hitting our
benchmark. We're going to meet our Kyoto target. We are leading the
world to reduced deforestation, the second largest source of
emissions" (see  "Turnbull attacks Labor's energy plan",
ABC Radio National AM, 31 October 2007:
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2007/s2076584.htm
<http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2007/s2076584.htm>  ).

The present Gillard Labor Federal Government has utterly false mantras
that they are "tackling climate change"  for a "clean energy
future" and these are duly reported by the ABC.  Thus an ABC Search
of the phrase  "tackling climate change" yields 487 results and
a search for "clean energy future" yields 209 results. Further,
climate scientists and biologists argue that we must decrease
atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) from the present dangerous  392 parts
per million (ppm) to about 300 ppm CO2, a level that has not been
exceeded until the last century for 800,000 years (for a detailed
presentation of such expert opinions see  the 300.org website and
"300.og – return atmosphere CO2 to 300 ppm":
https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org---return-atmosphere-co2\
-to-300-ppm
<https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org---return-atmosphere-co\
2-to-300-ppm>  ). However ABC Searches for "300.org" and
"300 ppm CO2" yield zero (0) results and 1 result, respectively
(Google Searches yield 75,700 results and 75,400 results, respectively).

The reality is that  Australia is one of the worst countries in the
world for annual per capita greenhouse gas pollution. Far from
"leading the world on climate change" Australia is one of  the
world's worst countries for man-made climate change as set out in my
letter (above) and as summarized below (also see Gideon Polya, "PM
Julia Gillard's appalling record of climate change inaction",
Green Blog, 8 March 2012:
http://www.green-blog.org/2012/03/08/australian-pm-julia-gillards-appall\
ing-record-of-climate-change-inaction/
<http://www.green-blog.org/2012/03/08/australian-pm-julia-gillards-appal\
ling-record-of-climate-change-inaction/>  ):.

1. "Annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution" in units
of "tonnes CO2-equivalent per person per year" (2005-2008 data)
is 0.9 (Bangladesh), 0.9 (Pakistan), 2.2 (India), less than 3 (many
African and Island countries), 3.2 (the Developing World), 5.5 (China),
6.7 (the World), 11 (Europe), 16 (the Developed World), 27 (the US) and
30 (Australia; or 64 in 2010 if Australia's huge Exported CO2
pollution is included).  Thus Australia's current annual per capita
domestic plus exported GHG pollution  is currently 71 times worse than
Bangladesh's annual per capita GHG pollution.

2. In 2009 the German Advisory Council on Climate Change (WBGU)
determined that for a 75% chance of avoiding a 2 degree C temperature
rise, the World must pollute less than 600 Gt CO2 between 2010 and
essentially zero emissions in 2050. Unfortunately Australia (through
disproportionately huge annual fossil fuel burning and exports) and
Belize (through disproportionately huge annual deforestation) have
already used up their "share" of this terminal greenhouse gas
(GHG) budget. Some examples below of how many years left relative to
2010 before each country exceeds its "fair share" of atmospheric
GHG pollution: Belize (0.8 years), Qatar (1.3), Guyana (1.4), Malaysia
(1.9), United Arab Emirates (2.0), Kuwait (2.4), Papua New Guinea (2.5),
Brunei (2.8), Australia (2.8; 1.1 if including its huge GHG Exports)
… Maldives (37.9), Kyrgyzstan (37.9), Burkina Faso (37.9), India
(40.1), Cook Islands (40.1), Bhutan (42.4), Yemen (45.1), Tajikistan
(45.1), Mozambique (45.1), Rwanda (45.1), Burundi (45.1), Lesotho
(48.1), Swaziland (48.1). Australia had already used up its "fair
share" by mid-2011 and is now stealing the entitlement of other
countries (see Gideon Polya, "Shocking analysis by country of years
left to zero emissions", Green Blog, 1 August 2011:
http://www.green-blog.org/2011/08/01/shocking-analysis-by-country-of-yea\
rs-left-to-zero-emissions/
<http://www.green-blog.org/2011/08/01/shocking-analysis-by-country-of-ye\
ars-left-to-zero-emissions/>  ).

3. Just as EU Creditor nations seek to reign in Debtor nations in an
ongoing financial crisis, so Climate Creditor countries should act in
the worsening climate crisis to reign in Climate Debtor countries of
which the worst is the US with a Net Climate Debt of $9.7 trillion based
on a price of US$100 per tonne CO2. In sharp contrast to the US, India
and China have Net Climate Credits of $6.5 trillion and $2.3 trillion,
respectively. In terms of Net Per Capita Carbon Debt (US$ per person) of
Climate Debtor countries, ranks 4th in the world:  United Kingdom
(33,307), United States (31,035), Germany (27,856), Australia (23,900 or
24,265 if including the effect of its huge GHG Exports on its Climate
Credits), Russia (17,529), Canada (15,560) (see Gideon Polya,
"Shocking analysis by country of Climate Debt of greenhouse gas
polluters", Bellaciao, 14 December 2011:
http://bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article21491
<http://bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article21491>   ; also see
"Climate Debt, Climate Credit":
https://sites.google.com/site/climatedebtclimatecredit/
<https://sites.google.com/site/climatedebtclimatecredit/>  ).

The taxpayer-funded ABC (Australia's equivalent of the UK BBC) must
be condemned for incorrect reportage and lying by omission over many
serious matters of which climate change action is the most serious (see
"ABC Censorship": https://sites.google.com/site/abccensorship/
<https://sites.google.com/site/abccensorship/>  ).

Dr Gideon Polya, Melbourne.



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

Physicist and physical chemist  John Tyndall discovered the greenhouse
effect in about 1860 i.e. the absorption of radiant energy by gases such
as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and water (H2O) and the effect of
this on atmospheric temperature. In the1890s Swedish physical chemist
Svante Arrhenius (famous for the Arrhenius Equation on the  temperature
dependence of reaction rates)  pointed out that increasing CO2 in the
atmosphere could increase surface temperature by this greenhouse effect.
An overwhelming scientific  consensus is warning that increasing
atmospheric greenhouse gases (notably CO2, CH4 and nitrous oxide, N2O)
is responsible for the warming of the planet (average surface
temperature today is about 0.8 degrees C higher than in 1900) (for a
succinct summary see "2011 climate change course":
https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/2011-climate-change-course
<https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/2011-climate-change-course>  )
. In a classic example of money trumping  inconvenient  truth,  the
fossil fuel industry and associated climate change skeptics (climate
change denialists) have obfuscated this expert message by arguing that
elevated atmospheric CO2 is a consequence and not a cause of global
warming. This argument has now been  debunked by a team of scientists
who have shown that elevation in atmospheric CO2 concentration preceded
global warming at the end of the last ice age.




This is a summary  by the editor of the prestigious scientific journal
Nature of a very  important scientific paper by Shakun et al. entitled
"Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations
during the last deglaciation" (Nature, volume 484, pages 49-54,
April 2012:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html
<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html>
): "It is known from Antarctic ice-core records that there is a
relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperature
during the Pleistocene ice ages. But the phasing between the two has
been unclear, leading to controversy about whether greenhouse gases were
primary drivers of the ice ages, a feedback from warming or even a
consequence rather than a cause of past climate change. Shakun et al.
have assembled a global 'stack' of proxy temperature records for the
most recent deglaciation, and find that during this period, global
warming was preceded by CO2 increases. These observations, together with
transient global climate model simulations, suggest that CO2 was a
primary driver of global warming during the most recent
deglaciation."




Lead author Dr Jeremy Shakun has summarized this as follows to the UK
BBC: "At the end of the last ice age, CO2 rose from about 180 parts per
million (ppm) in the atmosphere to about 260; and today we're at 392.
So, in the last 100 years we've gone up about 100 ppm - about the same
as at the end of the last ice age, which I think puts it into
perspective because it's not a small amount. Rising CO2 at the end of
the ice age had a huge effect on global climate. Our global temperature
looks a lot like the pattern of rising CO2 at the end of the ice age,
but the interesting part in particular is that unlike with these
Antarctic ice core records, the temperature lags a bit behind the CO2.
You put these two points together - the correlation of global
temperature and CO2, and the fact that temperature lags behind the CO2 -
and it really leaves you thinking that CO2 was the big driver of global
warming at the end of the ice age" (see Jonathan Amos, "CO2
"drove end to last ice age"", BBC News, 4 April 2012:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17611404
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17611404>  ).




This finding underscores the need for urgent global action to tackle
man-made climate change that threatens the Biosphere with continued mass
extinction (the species extinction rate  is already 100-100 times
greater than normal;  see Phillip Levin and Donald Levin, "The real
biodiversity crisis", American Scientist, January-February 2002:
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/the-real-biodiversity-crisis
<http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/the-real-biodiversity-crisi\
s>   )  and threatens mankind with a worsening climate genocide that is
predicted to kill as many as 10 billion humans this century (see
"Climate Genocide":
https://sites.google.com/site/climategenocide/
<https://sites.google.com/site/climategenocide/>  ). The World must
cease deforestation and burning wood, black coal, brown coal,
conventional oil, tar sands-derived oil, conventional natural gas and
coal seam gas (CSG) and then return atmospheric CO2 from the present
dangerous and damaging 392 ppm to the safe and sustainable level of 300
ppm CO2  that until the last century  had not been exceeded for 800,000
years (see "300.org – return atmospheric CO2 to 300 ppm":
https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org---return-atmosphere-co2\
-to-300-ppm
<https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org---return-atmosphere-co\
2-to-300-ppm>  ).




The World is rapidly running out of time to cease greenhouse gas
emissions and some countries have already run out of time in terms of
doing their "fair share" of this task. Thus in 2009 the German
Advisory Council on Climate Change (WBGU) determined that for a 75%
chance of avoiding a 2 degree C temperature rise the World must pollute
less than 600 billion tonnes of  CO2 between 2010 and essentially zero
emissions in 2050. Unfortunately Australia (through disproportionately
huge annual fossil fuel burning and exports) and Belize (through
disproportionately huge annual deforestation) have already used up their
"fair share" of this terminal greenhouse gas (GHG) budget and
are now stealing the entitlement of other countries (see "Shocking
analysis by country if years left to zero emissions", Green Blog, 1
August 2011:
http://www.green-blog.org/2011/08/01/shocking-analysis-by-country-of-yea\
rs-left-to-zero-emissions/
<http://www.green-blog.org/2011/08/01/shocking-analysis-by-country-of-ye\
ars-left-to-zero-emissions/>   .




What can decent people do? Insofar as this is practicable, decent people
must (a) inform everyone they can and (b) apply sanctions and boycotts
against all those corporations, countries, people, politicians, parties,
and  products disproportionately contributing  to the worsening climate
emergency and threatening survival of Humanity and the Biosphere. The
most useful single thing one can do is to vote 1 Green.





Dr Gideon Polya, Melbourne.



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

On 4 April 2012 the academic-based, university-backed  web magazine The
Conversation published an article by Dr Robin Tennant-Wood (Assistant
Professor, Faculty of Business and Government, University  of Canberra)
on massive cuts to the Department of  Climate Change and Energy
Efficiency by the Gillard Labor Government and entitled "Climate
change isn't over yet so why are we cutting climate change
jobs?" (see:
https://theconversation.edu.au/climate-change-isnt-over-yet-so-why-are-w\
e-cutting-climate-change-jobs-6269
<https://theconversation.edu.au/climate-change-isnt-over-yet-so-why-are-\
we-cutting-climate-change-jobs-6269>   ).

Key quotes: "Yesterday's announcement that one-third of jobs in
the Department of Climate Change will be cut
<http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/labor-takes-ax\
e-to-green-bureaucrats-to-bolster-surplus/story-e6frg6xf-1226318042678>
is yet another step back in the ALP's half-hearted dance with
climate change policy. Former Prime Minister Rudd called climate change
"the greatest moral challenge of our time", then promptly
abandoned the Emissions Trading Scheme that formed a central pillar of
his 2007 election. Current Prime Minister Gillard made a categorical
pre-election statement that her government would not introduce a carbon
tax, then announced 14 months later, "Today we move from words to
deeds", when introducing the suite of carbon pricing bills to the
House of Representatives. Now the government is announcing massive cuts
in spending and staffing in the Department of Climate Change and Energy
Efficiency."

I posted the following comment on the article to The Conversation (which
unfortunately has censored many of my comments; see "Censorship by
The Conversation":
https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammediacensorship/censorship-by
<https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammediacensorship/censorship-by>
) and so far it has remained.

"Excellent article. The public will eventually  realize that the
Gillard Labor Government simply has no intention of actually "tackling
climate change" for "a clean energy future" as endlessly asserted in its
false spin.



Australia is a world leader in annual per capita greenhouse gas
pollution. Pro-coal, pro-gas Australian PM Julia Gillard has an
appalling record of climate change inaction falsely dressed up as the
opposite.



The most outrageous untruth of Gillard Labor is that it is "tackling
climate change" for a "clean energy future" — but in
reality its policies in 16 major areas involve increasing
Australia's already disproportionately high greenhouse gas
pollution. For detailed and documented analysis of this outrage see
Gideon Polya, "Australian PM Julia Gillard's appalling record of
climate change inaction", Green Blog, 8 March 2012:
http://www.green-blog.org/2012/03/08/australian-pm-julia-gillards-appall\
ing-record-of-climate-change-inaction/
<http://www.green-blog.org/2012/03/08/australian-pm-julia-gillards-appal\
ling-record-of-climate-change-inaction/>   ( interestingly, if you
Google "PM julia gillard" you end up with 1,460,000 results with this
article being number 4; and if you Google "julia gillard" you end up
with 8,160,000 results with this article being number 11).



Thus, for example, under the fraudulent carbon tax-emissions trading
system Australia's domestic greenhouse gas pollution will increase
from 578 Mt CO2-e in 2010 to 621 Mt CO2-e in 2020. Most of the claimed
"160 million tonnes" of greenhouse gas savings in 2020 will be
purchased overseas and Australia's domestic plus exported greenhouse
gas pollution will be 1.7 times greater in  2020 and 4.2 times greater
in 2050 than that in 2000.



Tackling climate change means decreasing greenhouse gas pollution, but
Australia's domestic plus exported greenhouse gas pollution will be
10% bigger in 2013 after six years of Labor than that under the
Coalition in 2007.



Voters must punish Labor for its egregious lying and climate change
inaction. Utterly betrayed pro-environment Labor voters will vote 1
Green and put Labor last."



Dr Gideon Polya, Melbourne.



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

On 13 April 2012 Dr Robin Tennant-Wood (Assistant Professor in the
Discipline of Government at the University of Canberra.)  published an
article in The Conversation about the  retirement  of Greens leader Dr
Bob Brown and entitled "Bob Brown leaves a legacy of strength and
honesty for the Australian Greens":
https://theconversation.edu.au/bob-brown-leaves-a-legacy-of-strength-and\
-honesty-for-the-australian-greens-6422
<https://theconversation.edu.au/bob-brown-leaves-a-legacy-of-strength-an\
d-honesty-for-the-australian-greens-6422>  .

Key quotes: "At a time when cynicism about politics and politicians
is high and the major parties struggle to keep, much less gain, members,
the Greens continue to grow and are slowly but steadily increasing their
support in the electorate. What sets Brown apart from many other
political leaders is that he knows the party is not just all about him.
He has not had to endure the ignominy of losing his seat or being knifed
in the party room. He walks from the leadership and the Senate knowing
that he has made a difference and has done so without compromising his
conscience or his ethics. There can be no higher aspiration in public
life."

I posted the following comment on the  article and Dr Brown:
"Excellent article. Dr Bob Brown was a shining light in Australian
public life for truth, decency, humanity and responsibility towards the
biosphere. Fortunately all his parliamentary colleagues share his
anti-war, pro-education, pro-equity and pro-environment views so he has
left the Greens in good hands. It is appalling that so very few Lib-Lab
politicians publicly espouse these values that should be fundamental for
decent people.

The Green vote of circa 12% will surely increase (despite the appalling
Mainstream media lying in Murdochracy and Lobbyocracy Australia) as the
climate emergency steadily worsens as predicted by the latest CSIRO and
Australian Bureau of Meteorology report "The State of the Climate 2012":
http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Climate/Understanding/State-of-the-Climate-\
2012.aspx
<http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Climate/Understanding/State-of-the-Climate\
-2012.aspx>  .

The corporatist Libs declaim that Gillard Labor has been tarnished by
association with the Greens but the opposite is true. The Greens have
been tarnished by having to compromise with pro-war, pro-coal, pro-gas,
anti-environment Gillard Labor in order to get the "baby step" of a
formal price on carbon (for analysis see "Australian PM Julia
Gillard's appalling record of climate change inaction", Green Blog,
8 March 2012:
http://www.green-blog.org/2012/03/08/australian-pm-julia-gillards-appall\
ing-record-of-climate-change-inaction/
<http://www.green-blog.org/2012/03/08/australian-pm-julia-gillards-appal\
ling-record-of-climate-change-inaction/>  ). . However the Greens are
realistic, science-informed and have made it clear that they will insist
on real action on man-made climate change.

The Lib-Labs and the appalling, substantially US-owned Mainstream media
endlessly denigrate the Greens in non-environment areas as well as
environmental areas but it is worth noting that in 2010 the
middle-of-the-road National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) polled the
major parties for their agreement with 40 policies in 7 major policy
areas that most NTEU members and most decent Australians would agree
with. The Greens scored 100%, Labor 23% and the Coalition 9%.

The Greens are science-informed but the Libs and the Australian Labor
Party (an Alternative Liberal Party, Another Liberal Party) ignore
science and truth in favor of greed-based spin. The Greens are correct
that there are no jobs on a dead planet and that there will be huge
employment gains in the science-demanded shift to responsible
agriculture, forestry, clean industry, 100% renewable energy and
returning the atmospheric CO2 from the current damaging 392 ppm CO2 to a
safe and sustainable 300 ppm CO2 (notably through re-afforestation and
massive biochar production coupled with cessation of industrial and
agricultural GHG pollution; see "300.org - return atmosphere CO2 to 300
ppm", 300.org:
https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org---return-atmosphere-co2\
-to-300-ppm
<https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org---return-atmosphere-co\
2-to-300-ppm>  ). .

Dr Brown's commitment to reason and humanity was well illustrated when
he was expelled for protesting during the speech to the Australian
Parliament by climate criminal, war criminal and mass murderer Bush
(violent deaths and avoidable deaths from war-imposed deprivation now
total 12 million in the neocon- and Zionist-backed post-1990 US War on
Muslims; see "Muslim Holocaust, Muslim Genocide":
https://sites.google.com/site/muslimholocaustmuslimgenocide/
<https://sites.google.com/site/muslimholocaustmuslimgenocide/>  ).

Dr Bob Brown's commitment to science and truth was no better illustrated
when he stated that the coal mines would have to close (not tomorrow but
as soon as possible). Dr Brown was attacked by the climate criminal
Lib-Labs (notably the Murdoch media ) but he has science and equity
("all men are created equal") on his side. Thus in 2009 the German
Advisory Council on Climate Change (WBGU) determined that for a 75%
chance of avoiding a 2 degree C temperature rise, the World must pollute
less than 600 billion tonnes of CO2 between 2010 and essentially zero
emissions in 2050. Unfortunately, Australia (through disproportionately
huge annual fossil fuel burning and exports) had already used up its
"fair share" of this terminal greenhouse gas (GHG) budget by
mid-2011 and is now stealing the entitlement of impoverished nations
such as Somalia and Bangladesh (see "2011 Climate Change Course":
https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/2011-climate-change-course
<https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/2011-climate-change-course>
).

All decent pro-peace, pro-truth, pro-science, pro-education, pro-equity,
pro-environment Australians are grateful to Bob Brown and wish him all
the best in his retirement from Federal Parliament."

Dr Gideon Polya, Melbourne.



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

None of the Greens leader's achievements came easily, recalls James
Norman.

THE first time I visited Bob's old shack in Liffey in northern Tasmania,
I  was struck by the now famous sign on the front fence reading
''Trespassers  Welcome''. Spending that night out there by myself I
heard movement nearby and  wondered if someone was in the back shed. I
mentioned this to Brown when I saw  him later and he confirmed that
there was a homeless man camping out back.

It spoke to me about the kind of man he is: someone whose actions match
his  words.

Bob Brown announced on Friday that he would resign from Australian
politics,  as the party he has led for 16 years is at its prime. He
exits as one of the  great survivors of Australian politics, having
endured six changes of Labor  leadership and four on the Liberal side
since he was first elected to the Senate  in 1996 after 10 years in
Tasmania's State Parliament.

The reasons for Brown's departure seem simple enough - he is not getting
any  younger and feels confident the Greens are a strong enough team to
continue into  the future. Knowing Brown, this is a decision he will not
have arrived at  lightly.

Brown has recently rearranged his life in Tasmania, given his famous
bush  property in Liffey to Bush Heritage Australia (an organisation he
founded in  1991 that has gone on to preserve close to 1 million
hectares of bushland around  Australia) and moved to the idyllic farming
town of Cygnet in the Huon  Valley.

The last time I spoke with him on the phone he was rushing to join his
partner, Paul Thomas, to help with sheep shearing. Thomas told me on
Friday that  he was looking forward to testing Brown's athleticism in
mountain hikes they  plan to take around Tasmania. No doubt Brown has a
good life waiting for him  post-politics, but it's worth remembering
that none of the many things he  achieved in his personal and political
life have come easily.

As a young medical student in Canberra he struggled to accept his
homosexuality, submitting to gay conversion therapy and at one point
contemplating suicide on the banks of Lake Burley Griffin. Later in
Tasmania, as  a young GP, he finally ''came out'' as gay by first
knocking on the doors of his  neighbours and then writing a letter to
the Launceston Examiner.

This connection between the local and the political has never left him.
In  later years, when Brown was drawn into the battles over Lake Pedder
and the  Franklin Dam, he emerged somewhat reluctantly as an
environmental leader. He  still suffered from crippling nerves at the
thought of public speaking, and was  always more of a political figure
by necessity, rather than being driven by ego  or lust for power. These
early experiences ensured he has always retained his  empathy for the
underdog.

The idea of transformation is central to Brown's story. Just as he has
had to  overcome personal demons and transform himself into the man we
know today, he  has been able to take that power of transformation into
national and even  international political spheres. During the Howard
years, Brown was regularly  called the ''de facto leader of the
opposition'' and was frequently a lone  political voice against that
government's involvement in the Iraq war and  increasingly draconian
refugee policies. He told mass rallies around the country  in 2003 that,
''The prime minister has never, ever been given a mandate by the  people
of Australia to go to war with Iraq. The prime minister has abused the
terms of freedom and democracy in his own country.''

Brown's words cut through the cynicism that many Australians feel
towards  politicians and gave much needed voice and heart to a movement
that would become  one of the largest anti-war movements in history.

Although the focus of Brown's activism has changed over the years, the
fundamentals have remained: the attempt to keep in check the forces of
rampant  industrialisation, inject humanism and compassion into national
politics, and  preserve what is left in the natural environment for the
sake of future  generations.

Even from his enemies there is grudging respect. It's telling that
although  News Ltd papers in particular have attacked and criticised
Brown at every turn,  The Australian recently voted him the most
influential politician in  the country.

He denies that the viciousness of recent attacks is a factor in his
decision  to resign. His recent ''Green Oration'' speech with the
now-famous opening  ''Fellow Earthians'' saw him pilloried by a bevy of
News Ltd heavy hitters - but  most of them simply rewrote the speech
without using any direct quotations in  order to make Bob appear nutty.

Such attacks are not surprising. One of his favourite quotes is from
Machiavelli: ''If you want to change the world, prepare to feel the full
force  of the reaction against you from those that have the most to
lose.''

Bob Brown threatens the big end of town because his politics are the
politics  of democratic revolution: sustainability over capitalism;
compassion over  profit. He will be remembered as one of Australia's
true revolutionaries. One  senses his contribution is far from over.

James Norman is author of Bob Brown: Gentle Revolutionary  published by
Allen & Unwin.



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

On 26 April 2012 The Age On-line published an article by Stephan
Lewandowsky (an Australian professorial fellow and Winthrop professor at
the University of Western Australia) about the debate about climate
change on Australian ABC TV (Thursday 26 April 2012 )  and entitled
"Sceptics must start warming to the reality of climate science"
(see:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/sceptics-must-start\
-warming-to-the-reality-of-climate-science-20120425-1xlhh.html
<http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/sceptics-must-star\
t-warming-to-the-reality-of-climate-science-20120425-1xlhh.html>  ).



Key quotes: "The only conclusion about the climate that is taken
seriously by every single reputable scientific institution in the world
is that the Earth's climate is changing due to human greenhouse gas
emissions. This is the only idea that has survived peer review and it is
a fact on which the national academies of all industrialised countries
converge independently. There is a scientific debate about the climate -
but that debate focuses on the likely consequences and on the resolution
of remaining uncertainties, not on the fundamentals of the greenhouse
effect which was established 150 years ago".


The Age kindly published my following comments on the article:



"An excellent article that exposes the dangerous,
humanity-endangering gulf between credentialled scientists and
uncredentialled climate change denialists.

The international scientific consensus on man-made climate change is
implicit in the latest report offering a dire view of Australia's future
by CSIRO and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and entitled "State of
the Climate 2012" .

At the end of the weather report each night or indeed on the next Black
Saturday should the "balanced" ABC offer an uncredentialled, equal time
disclaimer from an uncredentialled, non-scientist, non-meteorologist
that "all the foregoing is rubbish"?

A 5-decade-career scientist in an area (biological chemistry) intimately
related to the causes of and solutions to man-made climate change, I am
appalled by the media-, corporate- and politician-expanded gulf between
the perception of reality by scientists and that of the public.
Accordingly, in addition to giving climate change lectures to university
students (Google "2011 climate change course") I have been giving free
climate change lectures to community groups in Greater Melbourne, from
Seymour to Trafalgar. If you belong to such a group please give me a
ring - I would be very happy to talk to your group for free, pro bono
publico, about "the science of man-made climatic disruption" (Google
this phrase) and solutions to the worsening climate emergency."

Dr Gideon Polya, Macleod, Melbourne.



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

On 27 April 2012 The Age on-line published an article by climate change
denialist non-scientist Senator Nick Minchin about the Australian ABC TV
"debate" between him and science-informed Australian Youth
Climate Change Coalition activist Anna Rose and entitled "All can
agree on green energy, but the rest is alarmist" :
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/all-can-agree-on-green-energy-\
but-the-rest-is-alarmist-20120426-1xnv3.html
<http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/all-can-agree-on-green-energy\
-but-the-rest-is-alarmist-20120426-1xnv3.html>  .



Key quote: "' Conversely, neither Anna, nor those whom Anna took me
to meet, could convince me that human emissions of CO2 are driving
dangerous global warming" [noting that 97% of inherently sceptical
scientistrs ARE convinced].



The Age kindly published my following comments on the article:


"Senator Minchin is not a scientist and - while "entitled to his
opinion" - in rejecting the overwhelming international scientific
consensus on the seriousness of man-made climate change is attacking the
millions of credentialled ethical scientists behind the medicine,
agriculture and industry that are responsible for our safe, well-fed,
prosperous lives today.



Anna Rose touched all bases in demolishing Senator Minchin from the
perspective of scientists such as myself but not from that of a largely
scientifically illiterate  and greed-obsessed society.  Anna Rose's
arguments about renewable energy could indeed have been stronger. Thus
based on Canadian  and New Zealand data, carbon burning pollutants may
kill as many as 10,000 Australians each year, this making renewable
energy far cheaper than Australian-killing fossil fuel-based energy (for
details and documentation Google "Australian carbon burning -related
deaths).



Further, in 2009 the German Advisory Council on Climate Change (WBGU)
determined that for a 75% chance of avoiding a 2 degree C temperature
rise, the World must pollute less than 600 Gt CO2 between 2010 and
essentially zero emissions in 2050. Unfortunately Australia through
disproportionately huge annual fossil fuel burning and exports has
already used up its "fair share" of this terminal greenhouse gas
(GHG) budget and is now stealing the entitlement of impoverished ,
climate change-threatened countries like Somalia and Bangladesh."



Dr Gideon Polya, Macleod, Melbourne.



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