Agmates

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.

An emperor (Kevin Rudd pictured above) who cares too much about clothes ( the glory of saving the world from Human induced Global warming) hires two swindlers (James Hansen and Al Gore ) who promise him the finest suit of clothes from the most beautiful cloth (prestige of leading the world to a Carbon Reduced future).

.

This cloth (saving the world from carbon Induced Warming), they tell him, is invisible to anyone who was either stupid or unfit for his position.

.

The Emperor cannot see the (non-existent) cloth, but pretends that he can for fear of appearing stupid; his ministers (Wong, Garrett & Co) do the same.

.

When the swindlers report that the suit is finished ( National Emissions Trading Scheme), they dress him in mime. The Emperor then goes on a procession through the capital showing off his new “clothes”.

.

During the course of the procession, a small child (60 Minutes) cries out, “But he has nothing on!” The crowd realizes the child is telling the truth. The Emperor, however, holds his head high and continues the procession (until the crowd gets to vote on his stupidity at the next election).

.

.
…………………………………………………………………………….
.
Have Your say!
.
.

The Australian Governments proposed Emissions Trading Scheme is the greatest threat to viability of farming since we removed all trade protection from our Agricultural exports.

South Australian farmer John Michelmore writes:

.

” I just calculated the typical carbon tax on a cow per annum. If this goes ahead and farmers can’t off-set their land use changes it could be the end of the beef industry in Australia.

We won’t be able to compete with any overseas country that doesn’t have a carbon control program.

Methane production per cow per day is 350 grams. Say methane is 20 times worse than carbon dioxide. That makes an equivalent carbon dioxide emission of 7kg per day.

At $40 per tonne CO2 carbon levy that’s $102 per cow per year. Even at $15 per tonne that’s $38 per year.

If a cow lives for say 10 years that’s somewhere between $380 and $1020 per head. If you sell your steers at 9 months thats up to $76.50 each. You can see why agriculture has been left out at this stage.“

.

……………………………………………………………………….
Have your Say! What madness is at work when governments are trying to develop the technology to tax farmers on their animals flatulence?

Australia’s whole Emissions Trading Scheme is based on CSIRO research that has been independently found to be fatally flawed.

Watch here as a Bloomberg reporter Bernard Lo interviews Professor Ross Garnaut, the Author of the Green Paper that the Australian Government is basing its entire Emissions Trading Scheme on.

Watch what happens when Lo Grills Garnaut about the bleeding obvious - Australia’s pristine climate at about the 3m 50s mark. Then again at the 6m mark Garnaut rattled refers to the Australia’s leading scientific body the CSIRO modeling.

Note - If Video stops and starts while playing - let it run through once then click the Play arrow and it will run through without stopping the second time. Its your connection speed thats the trouble. This may not work if your on dial up.

Please note that Agmates is not responsible for any content beyond the video we’ve selected. In other words, after you watch the video if you click on further links that come up to other YouTube Videos you do so at your own risk.

Click here to see Agmates ‘Videos of the day’ library

…………………………………………………………………………………………

Have Your say!

South Australian Farmer John Michelmore (pictured) writes:

The impact of methane on global warming and the sources of methane have now attracted the general medias attention.

Cattle have been singled as responsible for a large proportion of methane emissions world wide, and now results in the call for a reduction in the worlds cattle herd.

It appears probable that emissions permits (taxation) are under consideration for Australian livestock producing methane in their digestive tracts.

This series of articles on methane attempts to explain the science behind methane in the atmosphere and whether a tax on methane emissions in Australia will have any impact on global warming.

It is imperative that Australians understand global warming and the potential risks to our economy from an ill conceived emissions trading scheme based on inconclusive science and unlikely to be adopted by other major methane emitters.

Australia’s methane emissions barely rate as a percentage of global emissions. Therefore reducing Australia’s methane emissions will have insignificant impact on our climate unless the major emitters also reduce methane emissions; assuming we can actually control atmospheric methane.

Can we as Australian’s afford to be the first to set an example and take the economic consequences of an emissions trading scheme probably not adopted by the major methane producers; India, China, Europe, Africa and the United States?

We still haven’t learnt from our Free Trade experiences of the past, where our manufacturing industries have been decimated by free trade that no other country adopted. How are China, Africa and India expected to control their methane emissions when farmers are at most subsistence, and have little choice about their food production methods?

Methane is produced and consumed by a number of pathways in the world environment. Production occurs naturally from a number of sources and also results from human activities (called anthropogenic methane).

The overriding question is whether an economic accounting system is valid for methane, and what actual level of methane production can be related to human activities.

The current level of methane in the atmosphere (1750 parts per billion) accounts for about 20% of the “heating factor” created by the gases that could result in global warming. There has been an increase in methane in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution from a peak historical level of about 750 parts per billion.

There is no doubt the incidence of solar radiation on the earth, and the resultant increase in temperature can drive both carbon dioxide and methane level increases in the atmosphere. However the reverse also applies and no theory really adequately explains current levels of methane and carbon dioxide levels because of the complex scientific issues involved.

There are numerous feed back loops that impact methane levels.

The question is whether the human race can control what is happening to our environment?

The overriding question is: - Does the Australian Government expect that we can influence the major human induced methane emissions in other countries by example, and in the process push the Australian economy further into recession?

Maybe Dr Brendan Nelson was correct in his idea to move in line with major green house gas emitters.

………………………………………………………………………….

Have Your say!

Lord Christopher Monckton has written to Australia’s Climate Change minister Penny Wong warning that pressing ahead with an Emissions Trading scheme will see Labor thrown out of office.

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s new Labor Government in only 9 months has painted itself into a corner with its proposed Carbon Reduction Scheme that it may never get out of.

In it’s first 9 months in office Australia’s economic condition has deteriorate form arguably the strongest it’s ever been to talk in todays press of it quickly sliding into recession.

Fuel prices, Interest rates and food prices have all soared whilst consumer spending, house prices, private and business borrowings and confidence has plummeted.

While Australians were flush with wealth and money they might have been keen for the good of the environment too endure the extra costs (read tax) that an emissions trading scheme would impose on them.

However no populous that is struggling financially to pay a mortgage will accept an environment tax with very dubious environmental benefits. Mr Rudd may well learn first hand that committing to a scheme that hobbles ones own economic growth is indeed only the prerogative of a wealthy society.

He may learn why it is folly for him to believe that he can ever convince developing nations like China & India with their millions of people just emerging from a lifetime of poverty to stymie their economic growth with a carbon emissions scheme.

Increasing world wide media coverage that there is no evidence that CO2 emissions are linked to climate change coupled with the fact that whatever actions we take as a nation are meaningless unless the big emitters like China, India and the US take similar action is starting to permeate into the Australians conscious.

In fact if we were to cut our emissions to zero tomorrow China’s growth in extra emissions alone would make up our CO2 reduction from the global balance in just 270 days.

Lord Christopher Monckton is chief policy advisor to the Science and Public Policy Institute. Below is a copy of an email he sent to Australian Climate Change Minister Penny Wong.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Dear Senator Wong,

Greetings from Scotland! One of your constituents, Mr. John Cribbes, has asked me to drop you a short email about emissions trading and “global warming”.

I have recently conducted some detailed research into the mathematics behind the conclusions of the UN climate panel on the single question that matters in the climate debate - by how much will the world warm in response to adding CO2 to the atmosphere?

My research, published in Physics and Society, a technical newsletter of the American Physical Society this month, demonstratres that the IPCC’s values for the three key parameters whose product is climate sensitivity are based on only four papers - not the 2,500 that are often mentioned.

Those four papers are unrepresentative of the literature, in which a low and harmless climate sensitivity is now the consensus.

Therefore I should recommend extreme caution before any emissions-trading scheme is put in place. Such schemes will damage Australia’s competitiveness, perhaps fatally; they are prone to corruption in that they incentivize over-claiming by both parties to each trade and by the regulator; they are addressing a non-problem; and, even if the problem were real (as a few largely-politicized scientists persist in maintaining), adaptation as and if necessary would be orders of magnitude cheaper than emissions trading or any other attempt at mitigating the quantities of carbon dioxide that we are (harmlessly) adding to the atmosphere.

Therefore I strongly urge you to reconsider your support for this or any emissions-trading scheme. I have read the Australian Government’s paper on the proposed scheme, and the science in it is, alas, largely nonsense.

Politically, of course, the fatal damage that emissions trading will do to the Australian economy will greatly favour the enemies of the free West, which is why I, as an ally, have locus standi to approach you.

Climatically, your emissions-trading scheme will not make any significant difference. There are many other environmental problems that are real: I recommend that the Australian Government should tackle those.

As for the climate, it is a non-problem, and the correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing. Similar warnings are being sent to other legislators worldwide by those of us - now probably in the majority among the scientific community, not that one should do science by head-count - who have studied climate sensitivity and have found the UN’s analysis lamentably wanting.

The UN’s predictions are already being falsified by events: global temperatures have been falling for seven years, and not one of the climate models relied upon so heavily and so unwisely by the IPCC predicted that turn of events. If you introduce an emissions-trading scheme, when it transpires that the scheme and its associated economic damage had never been necessary - and it will, and sooner than you think - you and your party will be flung from office, perhaps forever. It is, therefore, in the long-term vested interest of your party to think again.

Monckton of Brenchley

………………………………………………………………………………
Have Your Say!

South Australian farmer John Michelmore writes:

It is blatantly obvious to many that carbon is not a pollutant, but an integral part of the environment.

Again the government has the cart before the horse. They sign to Kyoto protocol and embark on the introduction of a carbon trading scheme.

They then spend money on a community education scheme (9 million dollars by October) knowing that the majority of the population hasn’t a clue about the long term impact on Australia, when our competitors USA, China, Indonesia etc etc etc may well not introduce this tax burden to their economies.

The government also knows that there are serious questions in relation to the science behind the IPCC reports and the Guano Report (sorry for the spelling error). The reports are in the mainstream media almost daily if one cares to look.

For example David Evens who was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005 says of himself:

“I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.”

In this tremendous article in last Fridays Australian Newspaper David says:

It was great. We were working to save the planet. But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

“There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.”

An education scheme for the general public would include this, wouldn’t it?? Education is done as part of a decision making process, not after the fact.

Based on the governments ads I’ve seen, this is not education, its propaganda in its worst form.

Education is when the public is given both sides of the story and allowed to decide for themselves on whether man made carbon dioxide emissions are impacting the world climate.

Education is not, calling carbon a pollutant and blaming the poor state of the River Murray on climate change induced by our carbon dioxide emissions. The state of the River Murray is only a function of poor government in Australia, nothing else.

Australia adopting a carbon trading scheme will have NO impact on global climates because we as a population are insignificant in the world.

I only hope that the general public can see through the propaganda.

Sure I agree we need to look after the planet for our descendants; but economic suicide for Australia isn’t going to be at all helpful to our kids.

I just can’t believe that our government believe that Australia’s adoption of a carbon trading scheme will make any difference to what other sovereign countries do. In the meantime Australia and its population will go broke.

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Have Your say! Have you seen the Ads. I was offended the very first time. What do you think?

New South Wales farmer and Professional Shearer Alastair McRobert (pictured) writes:

The Green Paper released at the Canberra press club last Wednesday by Senator Penny Wong was a slap in the face for Australian farmers that have had their property expropriated by draconian and unconstitutional native vegetation laws.

Affected farmers had hoped that the new Rudd Government would make right the injustices perpetrated by the previous Howard Government, after recent comments made by Senator Penny Wong in an interview with Fran Kelly, ABC Radio National Breakfast

“KELLY: Do you have a view?

WONG: Look, I think there are plusses and minuses, there certainly are some issues still associated with measurement: how do you measure emissions from forestry and farming practices? But having said that, there is no doubt that those management practices can contribute significantly to your emissions profile, so there strong.

KELLY: And they’d (farmers) like to be rewarded for that?

WONG: Well certainly farmers who have complied with restrictions on land clearing have actually made a significant contribution to Australia’s Kyoto effort, but these are all the issues that we want to talk to people about and we will do so.”

The affected farmers are yet to be consulted as the National Farmers Federation does not represent them as witnessed by they’re failure to address the issues in its submissions to the Garnaut report.

Senator Wong’s response to Canberra reporter Ms Beeby’s question was shallow and misleading spin doctoring at its best.
In the Press Gallery last Wednesday Minister Penny Wong (pictured) said,

“As you know, most of the States have put in place land clearing regulation and that has actually, if you look at the emissions from land use change over the last 10 years, has had a substantial impact . So we did recognise that.

The second issue is, frankly, a practical issue. Because of the existing landclearing regulation a lot of what is left in terms of native vegetation, native forest on private land is reasonably small and is, if you were to include that into an emissions trading scheme, you would have multiple points of liability across this sector.

So in other words, you’d have the government in a position where it would have to try and ask individual landholders to remit permits on these issues for this activity and our view was that imposition of that was administratively complex and we questioned, given the other regulations that exist in this sector, what net environmental gain is benefited.”

This misleading spin must be addressed with the facts that are:

1. The Rudd Government has not recognised one part of the contributions made by the affected farmers in the green paper, no recognition at all, zero.

2. Senator Wong’s comments on the area of native forests on private land is completely misleading. The governments own National Carbon Accounts show the real truth.

In the latest National Inventory Report 2006, vol 2, page 4, table 7.3 submitted to the UNFCCC, June 2008 - the area of native vegetation locked up on private property, that meets the Kyoto definition for a Kyoto Forrest is 107,007,000 hectares (264,414,297 acres) which equates to 19% of the total area of farm land in Australia and 14% of Australia’s total land mass that is counted in the National Accounts.

Senator Wong say’s that this area is “reasonably small”. In fact this area of lock up equates to the only emissions abatement that has allowed Australia to be on target to meet its Kyoto commitments and offset the massive growth in the energy and mining sectors.

Take this carbon abatement; offset of 87 million ton of carbon from the national accounts and Australia’s Kyoto Target of 108% by 2012 is blown out to 138% with Australia facing huge penalties.

The unjust treatment by this Government in not addressing the affected farmers by compensating them for the expropriation of there property in there greenhouse policy mirrors the despotic attitude towards farmers of the former Howard Government.

It is ironic that the green paper and further commentary by Rudd, Wong and Swan since it’s release have confirmed that the big polluters and there Property Rights interests will be compensated with free permits to pollute and the very group of farmers that have had there farming interests destroyed through regulatory takings get nothing.

Guy Pearce (former Howard staffer), author of High and Dry summed the Green Paper up in interviews on ABC radio’s program the world today and Radio National last Thursday, saying the Greenhouse Mafia are continuing to run the Rudd/Wong agenda on carbon emissions and abatement.

Alastair McRobert

Farmer & Professional Shearer - Cobar New South Wales.

………………………………………………………………………………………….

Have Your Say! Tell us what you think?

1. Do you agree with Alastair?

2. Or are you happy with the way the subsequent governments have taken farmers property rights in the form of 87 million tonnes of sequestered carbon that will single handedly allow us to meet our 2012 Kyoto commitment?

3. Should it not be the big polluting energy Corporations that make hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars profit are year that have to pay?

4. Why is it that 20,000 individual Australian farming operations solely have to bear the financial cost of meeting our National commitment to Kyoto?

Tell us what you think?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Agmates Editor Steve Truman writes:

The hypocrisies of the Australian media making us all feel guilty for destroying the Australian environment is mind numbing. The media reporting on ratbag radical greens illegal activities over the weekend is outrageous.

The weekend just gone we saw Greenpeace activist taking illegal radical action. In QLD 9 activists broke into Swanbank power station just west of Brisbane demanding it be shut down during the Rudd governments current term of office. In Newcastle almost 30 activists chained themselves to a coal conveyor at a Lake Macquarie power station.

Greenpeace activist Simon Roz was reported as saying:

“We make no apology at all for the fact that our action is highlighting the urgent need to address greenhouse pollution.

Coal is responsible for a third of our national emissions and we simply must replace coal with renewable energy if we’re to have any hope of averting dangerous climate change.”

Why as a nation do we let the media condition us that we should feel guilty because we are a resource rich nation? It has got to the incredibly mad state that in 18 months time Australia must wear the carbon tax ‘green hair shirt’ to pay for our wicked ways.

And pay for our sins we will thanks to the Rudd governments world leading emissions trading scheme.

This is how ridiculous it is in a world context. Lets look at The United Arab Emerates. A stretch of desert that just happens to also resource rick, not in coal - just oil. See my google map of its location

Photo #1: Dubai in 1990 prior to the oil boom. A hot dry desolate place.

Photo #2: The same street in 2003 just 17 years later. All this tremendous wealth from Oil.

Photo #3: The same street in 2007.

Photo #4: Dubai In the midst of an unbelievable building boom. Dubai is said to currently have 15-25% of all the world’s cranes.

Photo #5: The Dubai Waterfront. When completed it will become the largest waterfront development in the world. Click here to see Wikipedia’s description of the water front development.

Photo #6: Most of this was built in the last 5 years, including the man made island that looks like a palm tree. All from money from oil.

Photo #7: The Palm Islands in Dubai. New Dutch dredging technology was used to create these massive man made islands. They are the largest artificial islands in the world and can be seen from space. Three of these Palms will be built with the last one being the largest of them all.

Upon completion, the resort will have 2,000 villas, 40 luxury hotels, shopping centers, movie theaters, and many other facilities. It is expected to support a population of approximately 500,000 people. It is advertised as being visible from the moon.

Photo #8: The Burj al-Arab hotel in Dubai. Currently the worlds tallest hotel. Considered the only ‘7 star’ hotel and the most luxurious hotel in the world. It stands on an artificial island in the sea.

Photo #9: Hydropolis will be the world’s first underwater hotel and is being entirely built in Germany and then assembled in Dubai. It is scheduled to be completed by 2009.

Photo #10: This is what downtown Dubai will look like around 2008-2009. The building in the Centre is the Burg Dubai which began construction in 2005 and is expected to be completed this year. At an estimated height of over 800 meters, it will easily be world’s tallest building when finished. It will be almost 40% taller than the the current tallest building, the Yaipei 101.

Photo #11; But it won’t be the tallest building for long. Below is an artist impression of the The Al Burj. This will be the centerpiece of the Dubai Waterfront. Once completed it will take over the title of the tallest structure in the world from the Burj Dubai. The final height of this tower will is expected to be 1200 meters. That would make it more than 30% taller than the Burj Dubai and three times as tall as the Empire State Building.

Photo #12: Currently being built - Dubailand Amusement park which will be twice the size of Walt Disney Land in Orlando Florida. Currently, the walt Disney World resort is the largest amusement park collection in the world and also the largest single-site employer in the United states with 58,000 employees.

Walt Disney World Resort is the #1 tourist destination in the world. Once fully completed, Dubailand will easily take over that title since it is expected to attract 200,000 visitors daily.

Photo #13: The Dubai Marina is an entirely man made development that will contain over 200 highrise buildings when finished. It will be home to some of the tallest residential structures in the world. The completed first phase of the project is shown. Most of the other high rise buildings will be finished by 2009-2010. The Dubai Mall will be the largest shopping mall in the world with over 9 million square feet of shopping and around 1000 stores. It will should be completed in this year.

Some of the tallest buildings in the world, such as Ocean Heights and The Princess Tower, which will be the largest residential building in the world at over a 100 stories, will line the DubaiMarina.

The Dubai Metro system, once completed, will become the largest fully automated rail system in the world.

The Dubai World Central International Airport will become the largest airport in size when it is completed. It will also eventually become the busiest airport in the world, based on passenger volume.

Why don’t we see Greenpeace activists chaining themselves to oil wells in The United Arab Emerates.

The answer is because the Arabs would never put up with them. They would be considered for just what they are - environmental terrorist and be shot on the spot.

We don’t see the Arabs implementing carbon emission trading schemes that will harm their economies. We don’t see them willing to kill off the ‘goose that lays the golden egg’ to pander to the international whip of human induced global warming.

Australia and New Zealand are bit players in the world economy. Yet Labor governments in both countries are determined to lead the world into a low carbon future. They are willing to risk crippling their economies and cause immense financial suffering to their citizens to lead the world.

They would like us to believe they they can influence the Arabs, the Chinese, the USA and the Russians into following their lead.

If we as a nation are gullible enough to believe that spin - God help us.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Have Your say! Tell us what you think.

The National Emissions Trading Scheme (NETS) is a greater threat to the viability of farming in Australia that has ever been seen. Adding 15-40% to operating costs, Australian farmers will have to compete with producers in many nations who have no such costs. The entire Agricultural Industry is at risk of collapse under such a regime.

If the Australian Farming sector is to suvive the impacts of the introduction of the NETS it is up too the National Farmers Federation (NFF) to ’step up’ to the plate.

The issue is beyond the state farming organizations. The fight to protect farmers against a 15%-40% increase in input costs from the scheme has to be carried by the NFF.

Below is NFF President David Crombies (pictured) response off the NFF web site.

“THE Garnaut Report and, now, the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) have reinforced what we already knew… there are threats to Australia’s agricultural production due to climate risks.

Farmers have long known the risks and have continually stressed the need to proactively adapt and mitigate climate affects, through research and development, new technology and modern farming techniques. Managing climate risk has been hallmark of farming’s tradition and, with the right tools, will continue to be in the future.

The Government’s announcement today of $46.2 million to reduce greenhouse pollution, better soil management and adapt to a changing climate, is a sensible first instalment - but we need to do more to provide farmers with practical, on-the-ground options and tools to adapt.

Professor Garnaut notes:”

“… food is an essential consumer good and climate change will most likely make food production more difficult.

Producers will need to adapt to climate change and this adaptation will require significant additional resources”.

“This highlights the critical need for research to underpin agriculture’s adaption to climate change and in reducing net emissions.

But, more broadly, Australia must not take an ‘at any cost’ approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, particularly as there is no certainty about the contribution to be made by other nations - especially our trade competitors.

Garnaut says the solution needs to be global. We agree. And, while we can take a leadership role in driving global action, we must be mindful that Australia is responsible for less than 1.5% of global emissions - and our economy has a breaking point.

Our response, therefore, needs to be measured and commensurate with that reality. Australia’s farm base is among the most efficient, competitive and low-emitting in the world. If we reduce production here, the bizarre outcome could see global demand shift to high-emitting countries.

We risk a disproportionate impact on Australian food production. Our farm sector is responsible for 12% of GDP, 1.6 million jobs, $30 billion in exports and 93% of our daily domestic food supply, and it could be absolutely devastated if the ETS or transitional policies aren’t geared to account for agriculture’s ability to sequester carbon in soils and crops, not just trees.

We need to invest today to safeguard the future. But, if domestic policies hurt farmers, they won’t be unable to combat climate change, resulting in a reliance on imported food and higher food prices.

Garnaut spells out that agriculture cannot be covered by an ETS at this time. We recognise the obstacles and agree.

Importantly, Garnaut does not suggest an arbitrary timeframe for coverage, but draws attention to the major problems regarding measuring agricultural emissions and the costs associated in monitoring and verifying those emissions across some 155,000 Australian farms.

However, he concludes that we must examine alternatives that can deliver greater reductions to emissions, at lower costs. These need to be incentive-driven and developed in conjunction with the farm sector.

Farmers can and will adapt to climate change provided they have access to the right research and development, targeted to new technologies and that enable them to make informed decisions.”

………………………………………………………………………………..
Have Your Say! Tell us what you think.