Media Release – Exempt Left-Handed From Climate Change

posted by David Collyer on Sunday, November 15th 2009

Today’s announcement by Climate Change minister Penny Wong excluding the agricultural sector from the costs of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme under proposed new compromise legislation is ridiculous and mistaken, say the Australian Democrats, and opens the door wider to further lobbying and rent-seeking by major polluters.

“If minister Wong is willing to destroy the effectiveness and universal consequence of the CPRS with this attempt to buy the support of the conservatives, I would advocate also exempting left-handed people,” the Australian Democrats candidate for the Higgins by-election David Collyer said.  “After all, they only produce one twentieth of our pollution, are very nice people and are equally deserving of assistance.

“This proposal is no sillier that minister Wong’s nonsense.

Recent scientific studies suggest farm animals, notably ruminants, are major contributors to climate change through the emission of methane, a potent greenhouse gas with significantly larger impacts than carbon dioxide.

“These studies need to be repeated, refined and enlarged, but without an environmental ‘all clear’, exempting agriculture from the CPRS is a grave error and probably irreversible.

“Many members of the Liberal/National Coalition are Climate Change skeptics, who do not believe in anthropogenic climate change and are unmoved by the now-extensive scientific literature.

“Minister Wong is desperately trying to placate the implacable. The Opposition are laughing behind their hands at her weakness and impotence.

“Australia’s farmers are now well into their second decade of drought.  They know change is needed.  And while shifting adjustment costs to others is an old political game, accurately targeting the source of emissions for actions to change behavior is in the interest of all.

Exempting any polluter – let alone an entire sector – means the cost of adjustment must fall more heavily on the rest.  The Garnaut Report gave this matter great emphasis and sternly warned against permitting ‘business as usual’ anywhere.

“If minister Wong is so willing to riddle this crucial legislation with exemptions and concessions, then by her measure the left-handed are entitled to a free ride too,” Collyer concluded.

Media contact – David Collyer 0413 248 193

“David Collyer is currently contesting the Higgins by election for the Australian Democrats against Clive Hamilton for The Greens and Kelly O’Dwyer for the Liberal Party,”

The Forgotten Nightmare: Nuclear Winter, Global Cooling and Universal Radioactive Fallout. More fingers on more genocide-buttons

posted by Robin Davis on Thursday, October 22nd 2009

While global warming dominates the headlines a more urgent danger threatens life on earth. Global warming could make the planet uninhabitable by the end of the century. Global cooling – the “Nuclear Winter” that would follow nuclear war – could achieve the same result in days or weeks.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union a disturbing complacency has set in. It is as if the threat imposed on us all by the hair-trigger readiness of thousands of intercontinental nuclear-armed missiles no longer exists. Perhaps this is understandable with the political and media discussion of the issue focussed almost entirely on the potential danger posed by non-state terrorism and so-called “rogue” states.

The selective finger pointing, fear mongering and drum beating only serves to distract attention from the chilling reality: the US and Russia still possess 97% of the world’s nuclear weapons and neither has any genuine commitment to nuclear disarmament. It is they and the other 7 established nuclear weapon states that pose the greatest threat to humanity and all other species on the planet.

If even a tiny fraction of the world’s nuclear arsenal were unleashed catastrophic climate change would follow. For example, a “small” nuclear war employing 100 bombs of the size that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki would pour millions of tons of smoke into the stratosphere. The smoke would come from the raging firestorms consuming cities, industries, neighbourhoods and people. As the smoke spread around the globe it would reduce the sunlight and destroy much of the protective ozone layer. Temperatures would drop and food production would plunge due to shortened growing seasons. Hundreds of millions of people, possibly a billion, would starve to death. [1] Think of Hiroshima. Imagine 100 times Hiroshima. (3) And this can quite accurately be described as a “small” conflict because it would be equivalent to less than half of 1% of the explosive power of US and Russian high-alert nuclear weapons. [2] That figure bears repeating: less than half of 1%.

A large conflict involving all of the Russian and US high-alert nuclear weapons would pour 50 million tons of smoke into the stratosphere, blocking the sunlight and dropping global temperatures by 4°C. [1] Think of Hiroshima. Imagine 79,000 times Hiroshima. (4)

Now consider a war involving the entire world operational nuclear arsenal. Think of Hiroshima. Imagine 177,000 times Hiroshima. (5) 150 million tons of smoke would rise into the stratosphere enveloping the planet, absorbing the sunlight, reducing global temperatures by 8°C; creating another Ice Age.

Climate change from global cooling would occur not in decades or years but in weeks or days. Survivors would have no time to adapt. [1] Until they died off from the lethal radioactive fallout they would be left with razed cities, destroyed infrastructure, horrific injuries, birth deformations, cancers, disease epidemics and mass starvation. Perhaps the tens of millions or hundreds of millions instantly vapourised or incinerated would be the lucky ones.

The potential for a catastrophic mistake is enormous, particularly in the case of a suspected submarine launched attack. Russian and US “Launch on Warning” systems” would give their presidents only 2 to 3 minutes to decide whether or not to retaliate. [6] Typical warheads have 20 times the destructive power of the Hiroshima bomb. Typical nuclear missiles carry 8 or more of these independently programmed to destroy multiple targets. Think of Hiroshima. Imagine 160 times Hiroshima – from one missile.

With this spectre hovering over humanity it is difficult to understand how anyone, least of all an environmental luminary like James Lovelock, could advocate nuclear power as a solution to global warming. [7] This solution sidesteps the health, environmental and security dangers associated with building and operating at least a thousand nuclear reactors; the increased environmental and security risks associated with mining, transportation, processing and storage of vastly increased quantities of uranium and deadly radioactive waste; and the fact that high grade, low cost uranium deposits consumed even at the present rate will be exhausted in fifty years. [8]

More importantly, it overlooks the enormous danger posed by more leaders of more nuclear weapons states (that would inevitably emerge) with their fingers on more doomsday buttons. While there are nuclear reactors, there will be nuclear weapons. While “peace-loving” countries like Australia mine and export uranium they are complicit in keeping the world on the brink of nuclear annihilation.

Here in Australia, advocates of uranium mining and export claim that this gives us a more credible voice in the world arena than we would otherwise have. They say our position as the largest source of uranium and the second largest exporter after Canada makes us more effective in preventing nuclear proliferation than we would otherwise be. In other words, by selling the stuff from which nuclear weapons are made, we are helping to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.

This absurd reasoning extends to the so-called “safeguard” agreements – essentially book-keeping entries – that supposedly track every morsel of “Australian Obligated” uranium during its travels around the world, including its reprocessing and on-selling. We can rest assured that Australian uranium won’t be used to make nuclear weapons – or free up other uranium for that purpose – because we say it can’t and the buyer nations say it won’t.

History tells a different story. Of about 60 countries that have nuclear power or research reactors more than 20 have used their “peaceful” facilities for covert nuclear weapons research or production or both. India, Pakistan, Israel, South Africa and North Korea have all developed nuclear weapons under cover of “peaceful” nuclear programs. Other countries have made considerable progress before ending their programs. (South Africa is the only state to eliminate its nuclear weapons.) [8]

Egypt, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Romania, South Korea, Taiwan, and the former Yugoslavia, all signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), have violated their agreements by conducting forbidden weapons-related activities or not meeting their reporting requirements to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). [8]

North Korea has withdrawn from the treaty; India, Pakistan and Israel were never members. The “declared” nuclear weapons states – the US, Russia, the UK, France and China – have all violated their NTP obligations and shown by their actions that they have no intention of abandoning their nuclear superiority. [8]

The belligerence and blatant double standards demonstrated by the “big five,” who also hold the five permanent seats and veto power on the UN Security Council, provides motivation and “justification” for other states – some repeatedly threatened with attack, including nuclear attack (“all options are on the table”) – to develop a nuclear “deterrent” of their own. “Peaceful” nuclear programs are the obvious way for them to develop the necessary expertise and facilities and to acquire the technology and essential raw material: uranium.

Five years ago Australia’s uranium exports had already produced about 80 tonnes of plutonium – enough for 8,000 nuclear bombs. The Beverly Four Mile mine in South Australia recently approved by the current government has the capacity to produce enough plutonium for 4,500 more. [9]

It seems the straight-faced hypocrisy of successive Australian governments is boundless: joining in the vilification of the latest designated nuclear “rogue” states, worrying over nuclear terrorism and mouthing non-proliferation platitudes on the one hand while allowing exports of the raw material for nuclear proliferation on the other. If Australia were sincere it would leave its uranium in the ground.

In December, representatives from about 170 countries will meet in Copenhagen to negotiate an international agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol that expires in 2012. Hopefully, amidst the media circus and political theatre they will commit to the carbon emission reductions necessary to prevent catastrophic global warming.

Hopefully, too, the world will awake from its nuclear slumber in time to prevent the other climate change nightmare: global cooling.

[1] http://www.nucleardarkness.org/index2.php

[2] http://www.nucleardarkness.org/globalnucleararsenal/usrussianhighalert/

(3) Hiroshima yield 15,000 tons x 100 = 1.5 million tons

(4) [2] Yield 960 million tons/15,000 tons

(5) [2] yield 2,225 million tons/15,000 tons

[6] http://www.nucleardarkness.org/highalert/launchonwarning/

[7] http://www.jameslovelock.org/page11.html

[8] Climate Change: Nukes No Solution

http://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/nfc/nuclear-climate/

[9] Arena Magazine, August/September 2009

Robin Davis lives in Victoria, Australia. He is a freelance writer and graphic designer. He can be contacted at: robindavis@hotkey.net.au

Women’s Voices In Parliament – Shut Up and Make Me A Cuppa Tea!!

posted by Scott Kane on Tuesday, September 15th 2009

"Gosh! I'm So Grateful To Be Serving Another Male Chauvinistic Pig!"

The Liberal Party of Australia has come out – testosterone blazing – to defend it’s chauvinistic record on women MP’s getting to say anything at all during parliamentary question time.

A clever party, facing accusations their equal opportunity principles are laughable, would find among it’s MP’s a nice intelligent and assertive woman to reassure the people of Australia that this was untrue.

A clever party would.

But what would a party without a real equal opportunity platform they truly believed in do?

They’d do what the Liberals have done and trot out a blokey back bencher – Jamie Briggs – to declare the whole thing a “…storm in a tea cup.”

Yes, in deference to its illustrious history of advancing women – like Alexander Bummer’s Downer’s “joke” about “…the things that batter…” when speaking on domestic violence and women, the conservatives have quickly affirmed their understanding of ‘Lady Voters’.

It goes something like this:

“Be a good girl and when you finish voting for me, go make me a cuppa tea.”

Labor’s Amanda Rishworth, took aim when she stated “…there are strong women in the Liberal Party … that deserve to have a say.”

She claims: …”the coalition was not doing enough to promote the roles of women and was severely out of touch.”

Of course they are!  The problem here is the Liberal/National Party coalition has an old saying:

“Behind every great man is a…  Hell! We only have great men!”

This is because in the world of the Tories – mired deeply in 1956 – “a woman’s place is in…why are you asking? She should already know her place!”

They ought to make a movie about themselves, with a catch phrase:

“There can be only – men!”

Updated: 11:00 pm 15/09/2009

This article was written prior to the Australian Liberal party declaring Peter Costello’s parliamentary seat of Higgins – a safe Liberal seat – was “not a seat for a woman“.   Not satisfied with silencing their elected female members, the old boys club of the Conservatives wants to make sure their male buddies are guaranteed a safe seat too.  Strike a light!  They must find women extremely threatening.

Go get them ladies!

Scott Kane

Uluru Is A Sacred Site – Stop Treating It As A Toilet!

posted by Scott Kane on Tuesday, September 8th 2009

Disrespecting aboriginal culture seems to be a national pastime.

Most Australians know aboriginal people regard the monolith – previously known as Ayers Rock for international readers not familiar with the correct indigenous and official name – as a significant sacred site.

Reports that it is still being used by tourists as a toilet is sickening.  This is disgraceful at a number of levels.  It is insulting to indigenous Australians.  It is disrespectful  to a unique landform and to Australia’s geological heritage.

Tourists climb the rock and once at the summit, whip out the dunny roll and take a dump!!

At the tender age of 17,  in a school group, I climbed the rock (the day Azaria Chamberlian went missing).  We didn’t use it as a toilet though!

That was three decades ago.  I know better now.  Climbing Uluru is disrespectful and quite dangerous.  Just read the plaques that adorn the base of the rock commemorating those who have fallen from the giant.

Andrew Simpson, general manager of the Anangu Waai tour company told Tuesday’s NT News.

“When people climb up the top of the rock there’s no toilet facilities up there.

“They get out of sight … (and) most of them have a toilet roll tucked away.

“They’re sh***ing on a sacred site.”

Let’s end this nonsense.  The view from “sunset strip” alone is worth the cost of going.  We dont tolerate tourists climbing our cathedrals and civic monuments.

We need to stop people climbing the rock!

Scott Kane

Abbott, Brough and Macklin know racism and squalor better than UN Rapporteur James Anaya.Really!

posted by Robin Davis on Monday, August 31st 2009

If  United Nations Special Rapporteur James Anaya did not understand why the “lucky country’s” indigenous people live in third world squalor and poverty he does now. He just needed to listen to the Government and Opposition responses to his August 27 statement on Australia’s treatment of indigenous people (1).

Opposition indigenous affairs spokesman Tony Abbott: “I think this is the kind of nonsense we are used to from these armchair critics.” (2)

Former indigenous affairs minister Mal Brough: “I get very annoyed when I hear people pontificating about human rights when today there will be children sitting out there in abject squalor with diseases they don’t have to have, inadequate education, poor nutrition and poor access to health and we have some nicety about human rights legislation.” (2)

Federal indigenous affairs minister Jenny Macklin: “… When it comes to human rights, the most important human right is the need to protect the lives of the most vulnerable, particularly children, and for them to have a safe and happy life, and a safe and happy family to grow up in. These are the rights that I think need to be balanced against other human rights.” (2)

The diversionary rhetoric used by Brough and Macklin implies that to criticise the Intervention is to condone the sexual abuse of children and the squalid living conditions of indigenous Australians. It also implies the absurdity that achieving standards of education, health care, employment, housing, police protection, personal safety, opportunity and freedoms taken for granted by other citizens – in other words, indigenous rights – is not possible whilst upholding human rights, as if the two issues were not one and the same!

Implicit in these comments, too, is the notion that Professor Anaya knows nothing, should say nothing unless he can say something nice, and that the UN should keep its nose out of our business … thank you very much!

Actually the professor did say a few nice things. He balanced his criticism with credit where credit is due and his criticism was reasonable, justified and fair.

Speaking of the government’s initiatives, particularly the Northern Territory Emergency Response, he expressed concern that its income management regime, imposition of compulsory leases, and community-wide bans on alcohol consumption and pornography “ … overtly discriminate against aboriginal peoples, infringe their right of self-determination and stigmatize already stigmatized communities.

“… Any such measure must be devised and carried out with due regard of the rights of indigenous peoples to self-determination and to be free from racial discrimination and indignity.

“ … Any special measure that infringes on the basic rights of indigenous peoples must be narrowly tailored, proportional, and necessary to achieve the legitimate objectives being pursued.  In my view, the Northern Territory Emergency Response is not.

“… As currently configured and carried out, the Emergency Response is incompatible with Australia’s obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, treaties to which Australia is a party, as well as incompatible with the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, to which Australia has affirmed its support.”

These are obviously the words of someone who has got a handle on the issues, sticks to the facts and expresses his conclusions in a polite and diplomatic manner. In contrast, Abbott’s and Brough’s insults deserve no further comment, except to say they are reminiscent of John Howard’s jingoism at the height of the “Tampa” disgrace.

Abbott, Brough and Macklin seem to overlook the fact that the “top down” Intervention embodies the same paternalism, racism, discrimination, stigmatisation and lack of respect that has brought indigenous Australians to their present state of despair.

As former WA premier and former federal health minister, Dr Carmen Lawrence, said in the inaugural Dhungalla Kaella Oration in May this year (3)(4): “This is not the first time they’ve been subjected to the will of others, with painful consequences; decisions about their lives have been taken from their hands many times before.

“ … Reinforcing a sense of powerlessness is precisely the opposite of what is needed to generate sustained change” and underlying the uniform constraints placed on welfare is “the racist assumption that ‘all blackfellas are the same’ … stereotypically portrayed as violent, abusive, drunks entirely dependent on welfare.”

Commenting on the style and content of the Intervention, Dr Lawrence said that the conclusion we were invited to draw was that “… Aboriginal people in such communities are so completely debased that there are none among them capable of being partners in addressing the depressing catalogue of disadvantage; only outsiders could properly diagnose the problems and devise the solutions.

“Apart from the sharp insult, what message does it send parents who are providing good care for their children when they are placed on the same quarantining regime as those who abuse and neglect their children? This is the antithesis of making people responsible for their lives; it reduces their ability to take control.

“The task is to dismantle institutionalised racism and discrimination in Australian public policy and to reduce racial bias amongst service providers and policy makers – not to mention politicians and the media.”

It seems Professor Anaya and Dr Lawrence are on the same page. Abbott, Brough and Macklin might have the best of intentions, but sadly they are reading from a book that is long out of print.

(1) http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/313713727C084992C125761F00443D60?opendocument

(2) http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/macklin-libs-defend-nt-intervention-20090828-f1j9.html

(3) http://www.reconciliation.e-newsletter.com.au/link/id/d99c0a45eee675c89990/page.html#c1a852da1cf3cea136ea

4) http://www.vic.democrats.org.au/PrejudiceOfGoodPeople.pdf

Mandatory prison sentences, terrorist laws and the criminal justice system – an IANAL* view.

posted by David Collyer on Sunday, August 30th 2009

There is a lot of loose talk and sloppy thinking going on – a natural stance for tabloid newspapers and radio shock jocks – about ‘fixing’ our broken criminal justice system with harsh anti-terrorist laws and mandatory sentences for violent offences.

Oh, really?

The purpose of terrorism is to provoke a society to self-destruct.  For example, the main consequence of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre was to erect a gigantic, expensive, pervasive, intrusive, unproductive security system that checks people for nail files.  And while my heart goes out to the victims of the WTC atrocity, the act did not reveal a glaring flaw in the law.

Terrorists are criminals.  No more and no less.  They must be tried as such.

A century ago, society was threatened by ‘anarchists’ and ‘incendiarists’.  Marvellously, the criminal justice system found it had the tools to try, convict and imprison these deluded fools.

When a terrorist is driven by political or religious fervor to commit an outrage, nothing is more devastating to his misplaced idealism than to be tried as a common criminal.

Judges can impose life-long sentences for vile, premeditated criminal acts.  And they do.

Despite the posturing of media outlets in search of an audience, the judiciary doesn’t want harsh new laws that limit their flexibility, moderation and power to heal.

What the judges have made abundantly clear is they really, really want genuine sentencing options to keep teens and young men guilty of minor crimes out of the prison system.  They know prison destroys whatever moral fibre these offenders have.

Be very skeptical when you hear calls for harsh mandatory sentences and fresh laws to deal with terror.  The judges don’t want them and nor ought you.

* I Am Not A Lawyer