TRENDS SUPPORTING THIS VIEW AND ATTEMPTS AT A SOLUTION BY GOVERNMENTS AND BUSINESSES:
- Scientists are supporting the view that the biodiversity of the environment is being reduced because of massive man-made agricultural systems established on land.
According to a recent study by Australian scientists at the world-renowned CSIRO, if the rate of animals and plants disappearing throughout the planet continue the way it is going, more than half of all animals and plant species will become extinct in less than 50 years time.
Business professionals and the government would prefer to see the current extinctions as due to natural climate change or other natural explanations. However, this plays only a small role according to the scientists.
Unnatural climate change and other events due to human intervention such as land clearing is believed to be the major contributing factor to the latest massive worldwide extinction.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
1997
The Australian Federal (Howard) Government with its emphasis on pure economic benefits and high profits without much consideration for anything else have sold off a huge amount of Tasmania's public native forests to businesses who in turn are converting the wood to woodchips destined for overseas markets. As the profits of these businesses increase, less and less has been returned to the people and environment of Tasmania. And to reduce costs, the forest management practices of these businesses leave a lot to be desired. As we speak, the businesses are clear-felling vast areas of forests instead of selectively cutting some trees and leaving others in place while replacing the lost trees with enough native tree seedlings. And where the forest areas have been cleared, the businesses are planting fast growing pine trees. And we all know what the CSIRO think about this: the CSIRO has described the biodiversity found in planting pine trees as replacements is the same as the life found in a carpark.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
3 October 2003
With an election year looming in 2004, the Australian Federal (Howard) Government has suddenly seen the benefit of protecting 15 sensitive environmental sites around Australia containing an abundance of plant and animal life and which are considered a high risk of facing extinction. The "biodiversity hot spots" were identified by Environment Minister Mr David Kemp. More than A$100 million is expected to be injected into protecting these sites soon. (1)
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
29 November 2003
The Australian Federal and State Governments seem to be taking a "one step forward, two steps back" approach to the environment when it comes to protecting a much wider area for biodiversity identified by scientists. More than 400 Australian biological scientists have signed an official document known as the Brigalow Declaration stating that the broad-scale destruction of native bushland through land-clearing for the sake of urban development was one of the biggest threats to biodiversity in Australia and in many areas has already become "the single biggest threat" to native animals and plants. Scientists now estimate that over 500,000 hectares is being cleared in Australia every year by humans.
The document has been delivered to Australian Prime Minister Mr John Howard, and another to Queensland Premier Mr Peter Beattie where nearly 75 per cent of the nation's land clearing currently occurs.
Speaking on the loss of native woodlands in the ACT of which it is one of many areas earmarked for land clearing by local governments around the nation, ecological scientist Paul Sattler expressed his concern publicly when he said:
'So many of our woodlands have already been degraded by overgrazing and development pressures. Eucalypt woodlands are currently the most extensively cleared ecosystem and all clearing should stop.
'As a nation where roughly half of our threatened ecosystems are eucalypt forests or woodlands, we cannot afford to lose any more. We cannot preside over an insidious decline of these woodlands and the species that depend on them.' (2)
When questioned about the reason why there is a need for clearing, many governments try to scoot around the high population issue, profit and other reasons by saying things like 'it is to meet the economic and socially sustainable needs of people needing to purchase land'.
But the truth is, at the end of the day, it is really about Governments making more money through taxes and rates and staying in office longer at around election time by supplying people with what they want or need (depending on the circumstances and requirements of each person buying the land eg. to be close to work, build a roof over one's head, privacy to make more babies, acquire and store resources etc).
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
8 December 2003
Because climate change is growing to be a major problem for world economies, the Australian Federal (Howard) Government is again trying to look good on the environmental front prior to the next election by suggesting a possible solution to the carbon dioxide emissions from coal burning. Unfortunately the suggestion has not been costed correctly and there is insufficient scientific evidence the carbon dioxide emissions can be properly locked away. The solution being suggested is to somehow capture the carbon dioxide emissions cheaply from giant coal burning stations and burying it at least 800m underground in a process known as geosequestration. Just so long as the gas does not enter the atmosphere, the Government thinks they have found a low-cost "permanent" solution to the greenhouse problem.
It is also known traditionally speaking as "sweeping the problem under the environmental carpet" among the environmentalists.
The Government is being unusually unclear about the financial costs of this solution (although by the very nature of this present government being R-wing suggests it could be perfectly normal to be unclear when faced with a difficult problem while trying to maintain the system). The Government would prefer to claim to the public that the cost to capture and bury the carbon dioxide would be around A$10 per tonne. In truth, burying the carbon dioxide will cost A$10 per tonne. But capturing the carbon dioxide will cost an additional A$20 to A$50 per tonne.
Also the scientific evidence as to whether the gas can be permanently stored underground even in the event of an earthquake is lacking. Are we merely delaying the inevitable for some future government to deal with?
Again all this is an attempt to win a few more votes from the slightly more environmentally-aware L-wing group of average Australians at around election time.
NOTE: The safest way to sequest carbon dioxide is by planting trees and shrubs. No earthquake can suddenly release the gas. Otherwise we must look for alternative technology to solve the problem of humans creating carbon dioxide. And as some scientists in the Daintree rainforests are discovering, the trees and shrubs must be healthy enough to do the job properly. Otherwise the plants will emit more carbon dioxide than it will absorb. This is a consideration when Australians are living in the most drought-prone and driest continent in the world.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
8 December 2003
As the Australian Federal (Howard) Government continues to focus on winning the next election in early November 2004 while maintaining the current Westernised and capitalist system with a handful of inadequately researched and poorly-funded environmental policies, scientists are now predicting a total meltdown of the ice over the North Pole by the summer of 2080 at present-day rates of greenhouse gas emissions and computer modelling. It has happened once during the reign of the great dinosaurs in the Jurassic period, and again nearly 30,000 years ago in the interglacial period just prior to the last Ice Age. And soon it will be the third time in known history when the North Pole will be free of ice!
There should be an annual award for the worse Government in the world that can't get their priorities right. The Howard Government would be way up there on the list. Unfortunately, the only problem is that the Americans will always want to be number 1. And under the Bush Administration, the American dream is fast becoming a reality.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
26 December 2003
Some R-wing people (mainly those working for R-wing governments and the military) are trying to be a smart-arse by getting back at the environmentalists claiming their effort to reestablish native trees and shrubs on small plots of land in an attempt to restore some balance is actually making the environmental problems worse. For example, the new trees and shrubs are attracting more exotic and some native pests resulting in a more unbalanced environment in those plots of land. Take, for instance, the koalas native to Australia. These lovable (but fiesty) creatures are now coming into the new forests and decimating them through high koala population levels and their voracious appetite for gum leaves.
Does that mean environmentalists should give up on establishing environmental balance through the creation of new forests? No.
The problem stems from the fact that humans in Australia have already destroyed many large native animals (and performed landclearing on a massive scale for both survival and making profit reasons) leaving behind only a few, high-breeding types such as kangaroos, emus and koalas. And with it, a range of carnivorous animals capable of controlling these high breeding types have disappeared too.
If we are forced into a position where the removal of nearly all the carnivorous types is a reality, there would be no choice but for humans to act as the carnivore in controlling these pests. But if we didn't allow our populations to expand so greatly and take over areas vital for the balance between natural animal carnivores and herbivores to exist, then planting trees and shrubs today would in fact be aiding in the rebalancing of our environment. Unfortunately the damage has already been done and the R-wing people are right in claiming the efforts of the environmentalists are making the environmental problems worse today than in the past.
Unfortunately this argument will not make the R-wing people more right than anyone else. The R-wing people need to look at themselves before pointing the finger at others. Instead of spending so much money making weapons and going to war as well as making high profits in various "non-recycling" businesses as many R-wing people would prefer to do today, the money would have been better spent in training people to do different and more environmentally-friendly jobs as well as preserving the animals (and native plants of a given area) we do have now and in using genetic engineering to somehow bring back the lost carnivores of Australia in the past so that balance can be naturally restored to its previous state.
NOTE: If we don't do anything to fix the environment, it is possible the environment can slowly adapt and reach a state of balance on its own. But it is risky and frought with danger. Before that time comes, there will have to be many more animals that we will have to let go and become extinct for a new balance to be restored properly in the natural world. The animal activists of today will hate this idea. But humans have already done the damage. And some animals will have to become extinct either through natural starvation or intervention by humans (through culling or by turning them into our next culinary delight) in order to bring a new balance to the environment if we want to continue with maintaining our Westernised and capitalist system we have now. Otherwise we must force everyone to change the global society and our system forever in a way that will promote the reestablishing of the environment as it was many hundreds of years ago, have what we need, and learn to recycle. And that means the end of all wars and in giving everyone what they want. Are we willing to go this far to restore our environment to its original balance?
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
17 April 2004
As the world nations continue to support the current 'non-recycling' US-style economic and capitalist system, the Indonesian government is faced with the unenviable position of imposing the death penalty on anyone found illegally logging the forest reserves of Kalimantan and North Sumatra. Whether this is to preserve the economic assets of the country, a genuine concern for preserving the environment, or an unofficial recognition by the Indonesian Government that human population is too high for every citizen to be properly supported by the Government and society as a whole, it is a bit hard to tell. Nevertheless, the move does send a signal to the world that something drastic is happening at this very moment as people are forced to risk their own lives to make a profit on the sale of illegal timbers to the world. Are people being greedy? Or are there people trying hard to survive and feed their families in this tough economic system?
Or maybe there is simply too many people to support and the Government can't cope? Therefore it has to act tough to stop people from selling illegal timbers.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
9 May 2004
After the Australian Federal (Howard) Government deserted original and creative research efforts that would have helped to solve many problems (including the environment) and instead chose to reduce funding, in making future funding unpredictable for two years for the world-class CSIRO and various universities, in getting the CSIRO and universities to select a few commercially-viable research projects (forming the main flagships), and in neglecting the Australian environment or supporting "public-good" research in more creative areas for a while in return for a healthy Australian economy, the Federal election is looming (expected in August-November 2004) and now the Government has seen the need to inject an extra $305 million for the CSIRO in the remaining mainly mainstream "ready to commercialise" scientific projects over the next seven years.
Then Australian Prime Minister Mr John Howard will say to his people what a wonderful job he has done by supporting the CSIRO. He will probably also claim he is being openminded to all sorts of solutions to world problems. But, as deputy CEO for CSIRO Mr Ron Sandland said, he believes the flagships containing these "ready to commercialise" scientific projects have captured the Government's imagination. Pity it doesn't capture the greater imagination from the dwindling number of truly creative people in Australian society.
Anyway by pursuing these flagships containing so-called broad and highly creative projects, CSIRO should enjoy funding from the Government while CSIRO heads tout how wonderful life is and how the divisions are working together (well, they must if they are to be seen as worthy of getting funding). "Toe the line" is the name of the game while Mr Howard remains in power.
NOTE: The CSIRO Corporate Communications has published in November 2003 a colourful booklet titled Creative Solutions. The booklet is an attempt to disguise the funding shortfall and to convince the public both in Australia and worldwide how the CSIRO is doing all it can to be creative in its world-class research work. A funny idea of how to be creative!
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
Monday 23 August 2004
The Australian Federal (Howard) Government through the Minister of Science Peter McGauran has taken the opportunity to use The Labor Party's recently announced backflip via the Shadow Minister for Science Kim Carr to support CSIRO through adequate funding with a media release claiming the Government is doing the right thing and should please the Australian community (ie. more votes on election day):
'After three years of unrelenting attacks on Australia's leading scientific research organisation, the Labor Party has at long last endorsed the Government's support of CSIRO's leadership and strategic direction, according to an article in today's Australian Financial Review.
"Having spent the last three years criticising CSIRO, Labor has finally stated on the record their support for the Government's record level of funding for the agency," Australian Government Science Minister Peter McGauran said today.
'After all his bluff and bluster about misplaced priorities, mediocre research and lack of confidence in its leadership, Senator Carr has given CSIRO, and the Government's support for the agency a big thumbs up.
'Senator Carr has also given his approval for the National Research Flagships, endorsed the agency's current level of funding and given CSIRO's leadership and direction a tick of approval.
'Despite Senator Carr's unsubstantiated accusations for the past 3 years, CSIRO has continued to build and refine it's research, most recently announcing a 60% increase in intellectual property income in 2003-04, resulting in $22 million commercial revenue.
'Senator Carr has chosen to leak aspects of the Labor Party's backflip, in a bid to dampen expectations of a policy announcement that would overhaul CSIRO from the top down.
'In a weak attempt to save face, Senator Carr has foreshadowed a charter for CSIRO, which amounts to nothing more than window-dressing, given the 40 pages of CSIRO legislation that currently governs their operation.
"I welcome Senator Carr's backdown and trust that today's comments signal a renewed phase of bipartisan support for CSIRO, free from further unsubstantiated criticisms," Minister McGauran concluded.' (media release from Jodie Naismith, media officer for Minister McGauran's office)
Mind you, neither political party are game enough to try something different to solve a wider range of problems. Maintaining the current economic system is all that matters to the politicians and CSIRO is still required to focus its attention on narrow "commercially-viable" research projects to save the Australian economy and keep the Howard Government in a position of power. For the Australian Government, it will be anything that makes them money and wins votes from employed "mortgage-paying" people. For the Labor Party, it will be to get CSIRO to concentrate on the manufacturing sector of the economy.
Truly original research and development work where genuine creative solutions are required to solve big problems (eg. for the environment with new renewable energy solutions, new transportation technologies etc) is still given a dismally low priority.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
11 May 2004
The Australian Federal Government has decided in this election year to be generous in its tax cuts for high income earners and people supporting the economy including those who can create a new family (ie. add to the population levels and ultimately impact more on the environment). Over A$16 billion in tax relief will immediately be provided after the 2004 budget. Nothing like kissing the ass of the Australian people in return for a few extra votes (and a few extra babies) at election time.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
12 June 2004
The Australian Federal (Howard) Government has released the latest environmental policies in the White Paper. Unfortunately the White Paper is not quite as green as it should to excite the environmentalists. In it, the Government has effectively admitted that non-renewable fossil fuel sources such as diesel are here to stay and will be used for as long as we can see (probably until all supplies of oil in the world have finally been depleted in about 200 years from now) because the existing renewable energy sources are not substantial enough and sufficiently reliable to power the business economy. As Mr Howard put it:
'For the foreseeable future, coal, oil and gas will meet the bulk of Australia's energy needs.' (3)
Therefore the only viable solution to the greenhouse gas problem is to focus heavily on a thing called geo-sequestration — the hiding of carbon dioxide gases emitted by industries inside large containers underground.
Mr Howard describes the focus on non-renewable energy sources as the only sensible and rational answer in today's society. Any talk on renewable energy is simply up there with the fairies.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
25 June 2004
A more positive step towards helping the environment has begun today in Australia. Both State leaders (except WA) and the Federal Government have signed an historic agreement to improve the health of major Australian rivers. The most important of which is to allow at least 50 per cent of river flows to reach the oceans. The State and Federal Governments will provide compensation to farmers facing a curtailment of commercial-quantity irrigation as a result of the agreement.
All we need now is one more step for the Governments to understand why rainfall in Australia has decreased so dramatically over the past two centuries and learn of imaginative ways to increase the probability of rain. Perhaps the drop in tree population through fire and land clearing exposing remaining ground water to the dry air might be the cause, allowing the great inland sea for creating reliable rainfall to disappear. Can water be reestablished in the central part of Australia and more trees planted for rainfall to be more extensive and consistent?
Australia needs big projects like this to solve its environmental problems.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
1 July 2004
It seems the good work for the environment has been undone once again thanks to the Federal (Howard) Government's new policy to provide mothers with a "A$3000 for every newborn entering into this world" incentive. This is presumably a ticket designed to kickstart the Australian economy for at least another 50 years if enough young workers enter the workforce doing things like hospitality, toilet cleaning, or joining the Army if you don't "fit in with society and the economy", and all on a low-income casual or contract basis of course unless you can get into the highly stressful full-time, highly paid and permanent executive positions. Combine this with a first home buyer's grant of around A$15,000, and we can be sure people will be tied down to employment for a long time and consuming the resources from the environment with absolute glee.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
24 July 2004
We are now seeing evidence of some governments preparing to shutdown all imagination and rely purely on "rational" solutions (ie. what makes them an immediate profit and maintains the economy) based on what they can observe works right now. In other areas of scientific pursuit where scientists write what they see is a potential link between certain poor business practices and the killing of living organisms during certain conditions as worthy of closer investigation, the governments are quick to "shoot holes" in the work claiming it is "opinionated", "lacking in evidence", "shouldn't waste time and money funding it", etc.
This is another way of saying:
"We don't have a clue how to solve the environmental and social problems of the day so the only thing we can do is concentrate on staying in power by supporting businesses in whatever form they take and operate in society in its current form. Because at the end of the day, it is the businesses that provide the jobs for people. And it is the people with jobs who are more likely to vote for us on election day."
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
3 September 2004
Australian Prime Minister John Howard has suddenly realised the possibility that the Greens (and some independents) could join the Labor Party to ensure the Coalition does not remain in power after election day on 9 October 2004. Add to this the sensational news yesterday that a Liberal candidate in the very safe heartland of Wentworth named Mr Peter King has defected to become an independent candidate for the region because of the serious concerns he has for the environment and the latest political power shift is starting to affect the Liberal Party's reelection chances. As Mr King said:
'...it was time for policies that get serious about climate change.' (4)
Actually the damage is so great that Mr Howard has had to announce today a compromise with the Greens and other environmentally-concerned voters. Mr Howard is playing his trump card by halting logging of old-growth forests in Tasmania and declaring a compromise plan to save the forests. As Mr Howard had revealed to the media:
'I think everybody would like to see old-growth logging stopped, but that should not occur at the expense of timber workers.
'I do not support throwing regional communities on the scrap heap in order to achieve a particular environmental objective. What we have to do is try and find a way through that accommodates all interests — the environmental interests but also the legitimate interests of local communities.
'What I've been doing is working on a plan which is reasonably well developed to try and accommodate all these interests.' (5)
So what's the compromise plan? We will have to wait and see. But if the amount of paper-based election material coming through people's mailboxes are anything to go by these days, it would appear any compromise plan from Mr Howard would probably "hold very little water" so to speak given how many trees have been used up to make the brochures.
Seriously, as Mr Howard has quite rightly mentioned at the start of the election campaign, this is a question of trust. It may be true the Government can be trusted on economic matters, but there has been no substantial evidence since 1996 that the Government can be trusted on environmental issues. The prime focus for the Government has always been to support businesses to provide jobs, pay taxes, and maintain the current Australian economy (for it is the employed people and those rich and powerful who tend to keep this kind of government in power), and that includes logging companies.
Ever since he signed the trade deals with diametrically-opposed nations of China and the US without considering the consequences of such action should say a war between Taiwan and China begin in 2008, it has become clear Mr Howard is only interested in winning enough swinging Green votes for the Coalition on election day and nothing more. Any other time and it will be business as usual with the environment given low priority.
Or should that be war in Taiwan first and business afterwards like it is happening in Iraq?
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
17 September 2004
As Australian politicians argue who is better than whom and which is more trustworthy in the November 2004 elections and a war continues to rage in Iraq, some people are realising how important it is to look after our environment as well as the people around us above all other issues. As Ross Jones of Earlwood, Australia, said:
'Amid all the hoo-ha surrounding elections, Iraq and whatnot, Sydney's water supply is down to about 45 per cent and being consumed at the rate of around half a per cent a week. Now this might sound like nearly two years' worth, but at current usage this percentage will increase as supply decreases.
'So the half a per cent per week will turn into 5 per cent per week, then 10, and ultimately 100 per cent.
'Frankly, I'm not so much concerned whether we cut and run [from Iraq or other wars] or how many rungs there are on my ladder; I'm more worried about dying of thirst.' (6)
And being poisoned too! As fresh water supplies goes down, more people will discover higher concentrations of chlorine in their water because governments are trying to combat higher concentrations of bacteria.
So what's the solution to the water crisis? If you're the government, the only solution is to get people to pay more for their water. All this while the government encourages people to procreate and increase population numbers in the cities.
Maybe those expensive desalination plants are starting to look incredibly attractive at this moment. Or why not recycle sewage water. Certainly it would beat the quality of the water in some Australian cities as Dianne Thorley, the Mayor of Toowoomba, said in July 2005 after looking into plans to recycle city in her beloved Queensland town:
'You are purifying the water to a better standard than is coming through a lot of city pipelines.' (The Sydney Morning Herald: Quotes. 16-17 July 2005, p.40.)
Now if only there is enough power stations to support the desalination plants and recycling systems...
Don't be surprised if nuclear power gets on the government agenda as the only environmentally sound solution to come from these officials to the energy crisis.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
20 September 2004
There has been a bad joke going around in the "R-wing" think tanks that it might be possible to reduce the height of Sydney's Warragamba Dam wall by a couple of metres. In that way, the current 39.9 per cent water capacity can be changed to 60 per cent and so give the impression to the people of Sydney that everything is okay (ie. in plentiful supply).
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
8 November 2004
The Australian people have been easily frightened by Mr Howard and his finance minister's talk of high interest rates under a Labor government as many people have already bought into the property market as an investment by renovating homes and selling them quickly in the hope of making a quick buck. With economics the deciding factor (hence the difficulty of the Greens getting into power) and the concern about an inexperienced leader for the Labor Party (ie. Mr Mark Latham) for most Australians, and lots of advertising on television and promises of better social policies by the coalition government, Australian Prime Minister Mr John Howard has helped the Liberal/National coalition to win government once again.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
12 February 2005
Now that the Federal (Howard) Government is in power for another four years, there is absolutely no need to rush on fulfilling certain promises. For example, the Australian public is still waiting for the Federal (Howard) Government to give the go ahead as promised in the last election of providing Tasmania's forest preservation package for saving 170,000 hectares of prime original bushland from getting the economic axe.
We are still waiting...
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
1 March 2005
The Australian Federal (Howard) Government is hiding behind the guise of Public Relations by telling people to "do the right thing" without creating and implementing the necessary government policies to protect the environment and reduce greenhouse gases.
The Government knows it has to do more to look after the environment. Yet it feels shamelessly compelled to maintain the economy as needed to stay in political power and to save enough money for the next election. So the Government chooses a healthy economy and further reduce government spending at the expense of a degrading environment.
How long can humanity survive this way from Governments more preoccupied with money and power?
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
21 March 2005
The latest information on global climate is now revealing a battle going on in the Earth's atmosphere between pollutants creating global warming and pollutants creating global cooling. More importantly, it is claimed current global climate models are not taking into account the pollutants responsible for global cooling and what happens if this pollution is removed while pollutants for global warming increases unabated. Some scientists believe global warming could suddenly increase at least twice as fast as present day computer models predict.
The story begins in Israel over 40 years ago when a scientist named Dr Gerald Stanhill measured the amount of solar radiation reaching the ground in 1957. This experiment was important for his country because he wanted to design efficient irrigation systems. A few years later, he repeated the experiment. Dr Stanhill made an astounding discovery: he noticed a reduction in sunlight of roughly 22 per cent in his part of the world.
Stanhill published the results in a scientific journal, but it had no effect on the scientific community. Stanhill called the phenomenon Global Dimming.
Then another independent scientist in Germany found in more recent times evidence to support Stanhill's discovery. Careful measurements suggest the phenomenon is global with all countries having a reduction in solar radiation, some more than others. For example, Antarctica had a 9 per cent reduction in solar radiation, Russia had a 30 per cent reduction, USA had a 10 per cent reduction and the UK had a 16 per cent reduction. When averaged out between 1960 and 1990, scientists believe the Earth experienced a decline in the amount of sunlight reaching the ground of roughly between 4 and 6 per cent.
In 1985, scientists at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich analysed a database of sunlight measurements gathered on land from around the world. They concluded with some surprise that the data showed substantial falls in sunlight reaching the ground.
This is interesting. Less energy from the sun should make the Earth cooler. Yet scientists are suggesting the world is getting warmer. Is this contradicting global warming research?
Now the cause for this global dimming has been determined to originate from another kind of pollutant entering the atmosphere. The pollutant is soot, ash and sulfur dioxide from burning wood, coal, gas and oil. Scientists estimate that just 3 kilometres of this kind of pollution can reduce solar radiation by 10 per cent depending on its concentration.
The battle of the pollutants absorbing heat from the Sun and those emitting or reflecting heat and light from the Sun into space is prevalent. So what exactly is the pollution in the atmosphere doing to the temperature of the planet? Is the pollution of methane and carbon dioxide creating more heat for the planet or are the other pollutants cooling the planet and hence the dominant factor?
Some world governments — notably the US Government under the Bush Administration — wish to believe everything is okay and that the Earth could in fact be cooling down. Most scientists, however, predict the opposite.
To add to the confusion, the pollution responsible for global dimming can increase the cloud's reflective properties. As scientists are discovering, when the air is filled with more soot and dust, a greater number of water droplets form around the particles. The more water droplets there are in the clouds, the greater the clouds can reflect sunlight back into space. This would mean a cooling effect.
NOTE: Water in the atmosphere is needed to trap heat emitted from the ground into space. Water is the principal greenhouse molecule allowing Earth to stay above 30&#degC warmer than the Moon (lying at the same distance from the Sun but has a temperature of -15&#degC on the surface). The natural carbon dioxide in the atmosphere raises temperature on Earth by a further 0.6&#degC. The concern is how the extra carbon dioxide from human activities is raising the temperatures by between 1 and 6 degrees.
But what happens if we don't have pollution in the atmosphere?
Well, if we didn't have greenhouse gas pollutants in the atmosphere to warm the planet, the present mean temperature of the earth would drop to a permanent -19°C. In effect, we would be living in an irreversible Ice Age. Water vapour is one natural greenhouse gas pollutant contributing between 36 and 70 per cent of the greenhouse effect on earth (not including clouds), a further 9 to 26 per cent from carbon dioxide, 4 to 9 per cent from methane, and ozone causes 3 to 7 per cent.
Okay. So what happens when we reduce the pollutants for cooling the planet?
Europe is cutting pollution in the air. However some scientists believe this is the pollution responsible for global dimming. So as the pollution goes down, there is a slight reduction in global dimming. Now European temperatures are rising because sunlight is reaching the ground more easily.
And it isn't a normal increase in temperature.
The global warming effect of pollutants from carbon dioxide and methane (also called global brightening) continues to increase unabated. Scientists are facing the unenviable task of revamping their predictions for a more dramatic increase in temperature for the foreseeable future. The models should predict a temperature range difference of at least twice as much than currently published.
Martin Wild, a scientist at the Swiss institute said:
'Sunlight at the land surface declined between the '60s and '80s, and this was possibly related to increased air pollution which may have masked global warming. The dimming ended during the '80s in many locations, and the atmosphere has since become more transparent for sunlight, possibly favoured by air pollution control. The absence of solar dimming may have no longer masked the greenhouse effect in the past two decades, with the result that the full dimension of the greenhouse effect has become only evident in the past two decades after dimming has ceased.' (Connor, Steve. Dim views rise in global brightening: The Canberra Times. 14 May 2005, p.B8.)
If this is true, it is possible for ice in Greenland to completely melt by 2030 (not 2080), rainforests may dry up sufficiently, more rainforest trees will become stressed in the drier conditions and thus less able to absorb the greenhouse gases quickly enough to counteract the global warming pollutants, the rainforests become a greater fire hazard, and should a fire rip through the rainforests, will accelerate global warming even more dramatically.
Earth could experience a runaway global warming effect with no sufficient plant cover on the Earth's surface in a healthier enough state to absorb the greenhouse gases. Soon more countries could turn into deserts and become inhospitable for humans to live. Droughts and famine could be a far more common sight in places such as Africa and India. And affluent countries will be forced to rely on technology to desalinate ocean water and grow food in factories to solve their immediate problems while maintaining the economy.
Does this mean we should continue to maintain the present levels of pollution emanating from burning coal, gas and oil? World governments and business professionals would love it. Scientists, on the other hand, say "No!"
Scientists predict the atmosphere will be choked with enough soot, ash and sulfur dioxide that eventually human health will deteriorate to the point where our lifespan is shortened.
The solution? We must tackle both types of pollutants simultaneously. And the only way we can do this is to get at the root problem: the burning of wood, coal, gas and oil. Humanity must now find alternative and cleaner energy sources. Or humans must reduce their demand for cars, electricity and natural gas.
Otherwise human population levels will be forced to go down because of health problems from poor air pollution. Or else face inhospitable, desert-like conditions through much of the world continents. And it won't be just obesity that will kill the human population sooner than later.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
30 March 2005
The results of a massive and most comprehensive UN-backed US$20 million scientific study on the current state of the global ecosystem, or life support system of the planet, has just been released and the news is not good.
It began a few years ago when United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan understood the importance of looking after the environment for the survival of the human race and all of life on Earth, solving poverty, and maintaining economic development.
Only one problem: Mr Annan needed the latest scientific information to accurately reveal the state of the environment today. This is where the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) comes into the picture. Launched in June 2001, Mr Annan hoped to use the information in MA to deliver effective environmental policy for the global community.
As Mr Annan said:
'It is impossible to devise effective environmental policy unless it is based on sound scientific information. While major advances in data collection have been made in many areas, large gaps in our knowledge remain. In particular, there has never been a comprehensive global assessment of the worldÕs major ecosystems. The planned Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, a major international collaborative effort to map the health of our planet, is a response to this need.' (http://www.ourplanet.com/imgversn/133/watson.html)
In launching the report, Mr Annan reemphasised its importance when he said:
'Only by understanding the environment and how it works, can we make the necessary decisions to protect it. Only by valuing all our precious natural and human resources can we hope to build a sustainable future. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment is an unprecedented contribution to our global mission for development, sustainability and peace.' (http://www.maweb.org/en/Article.aspx?id=58)
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment work was overseen by a 45-member board of directors, co-chaired by Dr. Robert Watson, chief scientist of The World Bank, and Dr A. H. Zakri, director of the United Nations UniversityÕs Institute of Advanced Studies. The Assessment Panel, which oversees the technical work of the MA, includes 13 of the worldÕs leading social and natural scientists. It is co-chaired by Angela Cropper of the Cropper Foundation, and Dr. Harold Mooney of Stanford University. Dr. Walter Reid is the director of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.
Today, the work was completed and consists of seven summary reports and four technical volumes. The work will be repeated every 5 to 10 years to see how the ecosystems of planet Earth are fairing under human rule while people continue to exploit the natural resources.
Requiring over 1,350 authors (many of them scientific experts) from 95 countries to work in four technical expert groups to prepare the global assessment and another few hundreds more to conduct more than 30 assessments at the local level, the results of the report found that:
(i) Most of the world's ecosystems are already on the path of unsustainability.
(ii) 60 per cent of the world's natural resources are at critical levels. The resources at risk of total destruction involve all the basics of life — water, clean air, food, timber and a predictable climate.
(iii) Much of the damaged or near total destruction of the natural resources are largely an irreversible loss to the world's biological diversity.
(iv) Between 10 and 30 per cent of the mammal, bird and amphibian species are at risk of extinction.
(ii) The responsibility for the destruction of the natural resources lies squarely at humans.
Of all the ecosystem services, only crop, livestock and aquaculture production, and carbon sequestration for global climate control has increased to the benefit of a better environment. But far too many other services are creating problems for the environment. The worse ones of all are presently fisheries and fresh water, which are said to be so poorly managed that it can no longer sustain current, let alone future, demands.
Director of the MA study Mr Walter Reid summarised the reports to the media in London on 30 March 2005 in the following way:
'These [ecosystem] changes have resulted in a substantial and largely
irreversible loss to the biological diversity of the planet.
'Over the past 50 years, humans have changed ecosystems more rapidly and extensively than in any comparable time in human history, largely to meet rapidly growing demands for food, fresh water, timber, fiber and fuel. This has resulted in substantial and largely irreversible loss in the diversity of life on Earth.'
The only hope humans have of easing the strain on the environment is to make significant changes in consumption habits, better education, introduce new and radical technologies (especially of the renewable energy sources type), and raising the price of those ecosystem services which exploit but don't help to sustain or recycle (eg. an environmental tax reflect the true cost of providing the services to the human population).
If humans don't change their attitude and behaviour towards the environment immediately, environmental degradation will be so great that:
(i) humans dying in third world countries because of starvation will be in unprecedented numbers;
(ii) the rest of the human population will experience new and more devastating diseases;
(iii) fresh water supplies and clean air will be polluted creating massive health problems for humans such as lung cancer;
(iv) the commercial fisheries industry will collapse; and
(v) there will be dramatic changes in local climates.
Since the release of the reports, no Australian commercial television station (Channel 9, 7 and 10) or major newspaper (except The Age) would give them a mention. Only The Age in Melbourne made the reports on the State of the World front page, and the ABC radio stations and the ABC 7.00pm news in Canberra discussed the results of the report as a minor story (definitely not the first item of news) on Thursday 31 March 2005 (a day after the reports were officially released to the media in London).
The Australian Federal (Howard) Government was not entirely immuned to the report. On hearing the results, the Government essentially overlooked the reports' importance saying it is not significant enough to require changes in the Australian economy.
In other words, it is unlikely people will change their behaviour by putting the environment first unless their own survival is affected through a massive hike in the price of food in the supermarkets and the salaries aren't high enough to cover the costs (plus the mortgage).
(L-brain) humans really do have a habit of changing only at the last minute.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
9 April 2005
Amazingly, despite the UN-backed scientific report on the State of the World, around 25 per cent of the 500 climate researchers who attended a climate seminar conducted by The Frederich Naumann Foundation in Germany were still sceptical of global warming, especially if it is linked in any way to human activity. The excuses made have ranged from:
"There are too many variables and big questions we don't know about, so why implicate humans in the global warming until these variables and questions have been understood?"
or
"The total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (considered by some people to be at the heart of the problem) makes up less than 1 per cent of greenhouse gases (water vapour is the principle temperature controller). The contribution humans make to this carbon dioxide component through their activities is too small to have a significant effect on climate."
or
"Climate change has been going on for millions of years so why focus on human industry for today's climate change?"
to:
"I have been paid by my government too well to say anything else."
For these scientists, global warming is considered a natural event not influenced in anyway by humans.
Yes, and there were people in medieval times who believed the Earth was flat too!
For example, in an effort to emphasise a more natural explanation for today's global warming, science journalists (eg. at ABC's Catalyst program, 19 May 2005) are prepared to say that when the great supercontinent of Gondwana land broke up, climate began to get drier and hotter, thus explaining today's climate. The reality is, conditions were getting drier, but the temperatures were going in the opposite direction. Conditions were getting cooler.
In the Cretaceous period after 65 million years ago, ice appeared on Antarctica. Then there was a period of relatively moist and cool conditions leading to glacial periods called Ice Ages, followed by interglacial periods. Today we are in an interglacial period, except for one fact: the Earth may never experience another Ice Age again for the rest of its geological future because of human activity. Without adequate environmental care, Earth could become more like the planet Venus where the conditions are constantly hot and dry.
Earth, with fewer healthy plants to balance things out, is heading towards an irreversible runaway global warming where our lands turn to desert unless our technology can provide the means of balancing things.
In essence, there are too many scientists who believe there is a 90 per cent chance global temperatures will rise between 1.5 degrees and 4.5 degrees in the next 100 years. But there are still a sizeable number of scientists who aren't willing to point a finger at humanity for at least some of the responsibility simply because they feel there is less information known about exactly how humans can affect the climate compared to the solid data we now have over the last few thousand years on global temperatures. And while the information is poor, it is not worth the money and effort on reducing carbon dioxide emissions as a precautionary measure now until the hard evidence arrives. Instead, faced with a good prospect of higher temperatures in the coming years, those few scientists prefer to solve the current global warming problem by saying, "Let's do nothing".
Some scientists claim we should all learn to live with the almost certain fact that the world is getting warmer. So stop wasting time and money worrying about the problem. Let's maintain the economy and keep doing the same things until we know what is really happening.
Or is it because some governments and scientists know what is happening or have a strong inkling but are afraid to acknowledge any action to stop climate change (among other important environmental issues) may result in no growth for the economic system?
Could the fear of possible economic collapse and people losing power and money when there is no growth be driving some people to argue there is no climate change to be concerned about?
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
13 May 2005
The latest developments for the remaining 190,000 hectares of old-growth Tasmanian forests reveals that an agreement has finally been made between the Tasmanian government and the Australian Federal (Howard) Government. The agreement will not involve turning the forests into national parks or World Heritage areas. Instead, Mr Howard will provide a $250 million package to preserve about 120,490 hectares of original forests until such time in the near future when certain dire economic consequences looms for the timber industry and then it may be possible to reverse the agreement.
The sole aim of this agreement is to immediately appease some environmentally-concerned Tasmanian people by showing some key areas of high conservation value will be preserved while balancing the needs of maintaining jobs and keeping the timber industry alive and well.
The agreement won't stop timber companies applying for a license to access the protected areas. The package will be mainly to maintain current supply levels and modernise technology (ie. reduce timber waste) for the timber companies until the money runs out.
Another problem with the agreement is the way the trees will be cut down and others preserved to give the impression it is balanced. As timber companies clear the trees, isolated islands of old-growth forests will remain. A slight improvement from the complete and utter destruction of the forests leaving behind a barren and wasteful landscape. But not sufficiently ecologically-sensitive enough to allow animals to move from one natural habitat of trees to the next searching for food and shelter. Actually the agreement does not guarantee companies will not undertake complete land-clearing. If land is to be cleared of trees, the companies are legally able to do this with almost complete impunity.
On the positive side, the poison 1080 used by timber companies, which has caused the deaths of thousands of animals, will be banned by the end of the year. And the conversion of native trees to pine planatation forests will be phased out by 2010, pleasing some environmental groups.
Australian Conservation Foundation campaign director Mr John Connor welcomes the funding. The amount was as sought by the environmental groups to protect the forests. But as Connor said:
'So the money is welcome, but it's not targeted appropriately and it's still going to continue logging in old-growth forests.' (Grace, Robyn. $250m to protect Tasmanian forests: The Canberra Times. 14 May 2005, p.5.)
Australian Greens senator Bob Brown was a little more scathing of Mr Howard when he said:
'What a lost opportunity. Two parts poison to one part champagne the Prime Minister has dished up to Australians today.' (Grace, Robyn. $250m to protect Tasmanian forests: The Canberra Times. 14 May 2005, p.5.)
Opposition leader Kim Beazley tried to put a positive spin on it by saying, "On balance, the agreement offers better protection for forests than currently exists." (Peatling, Stephanie & Darby, Andrew. Forests miss heritage listing in $250m deal: The Sydney Morning Herald. 14-15 May 2005, p.11.)
However it still doesn't deal with the problem of high demands for wood by a growing number of consumers not to mention the need to pay employees which is forcing timber companies to take out so much timber.
Instead of setting policies based on the priority of the environment being first and economics second by ensuring the forests are preserved and regenerated through a careful removal of some logs in a random fashion and over a large area while keeping the rest of the forests well-connected and intact as well as planting new trees to replace the ones removed, we will continue to face the inevitable demise of the remaining Tasmanian forests. If not for the next four years, then maybe in 8 or 15 years from now when the money runs out.
And when that happens, how can we guarantee there will be jobs for the timber workers and the average consumers can continue to buy wood from Australia once the forests are gone?
- Where farmers are compelled to expand their food production with the help of generous government subsidies or to make higher profits, there are still too many farmers employing poor farming practices on the land. As a result, the levels of salinity in national fresh water supplies goes up and the government must impose restrictions on the amount of fresh water farmers can use for irrigation and what trees can be cut down.
- People are finding it increasingly harder to have their own home or live in a low-cost and quality rented property because of high demands for housing stock and high costs for natural building products.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
September 2003
People living in rented properties are not likely to look after what they are given as well as if they had their own home. Part of the reason is because landlords are becoming increasingly more profit-motivated and want to renovate and sell the properties, or force tenants to pay much higher rents after the renovations. Also there is little incentive for renters to improve the quality of their rented homes on their own because it is difficult to be guaranteed long-term accommodation by their landlord or to be provided with other incentives (eg. lower rent).
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
4 October 2003
Many "R-wing" thinkers are still arguing it is better to cut adrift the people who don't look after public or private housing in the naive belief this will improve the social fabric of modern society. So what happens to the people who are made to live on the streets after being made isolated? Do we twiddle one's thumbs and hope they will survive and do the right thing without a roof over their heads? And exactly why do people treat a property badly? What is going through the minds of these people and what happened to these people in the past to lead them to this point? Because by understanding the past, we can create a new future for these people.
And anyway, is it really these people's fault all of the time?
If one could look deeply at this issue, it would not be surprising to find these people were treated badly at some point in time (usually at home or by the government or other people) and have grown up with very low-esteem, a feeling of worthliness, and have no pride in looking after the things they can own if given the opportunity to look after something they like (usually because there is no reward scheme and other people were more preoccupied with making as much money as possible by selling properties and asking others for higher rents).
So what do these low self-esteem people do to rebalance themselves? A number of them may be forced to come up with their own negative solutions. And then the "R-wing" people see what is happening and choose not to tackle directly in a compassionate manner because they think it is too hard, time-consuming and expensive to deal with it in any other way.
Instead of helping to raise the low self-esteem in a different and more safer way, "R-wing" people nowadays would prefer to save money, time and other resources (for the sake of having a healthy economy and in keeping themselves rich beyond their wildest dreams) by isolating troublemakers or poor people even more from society and force them to survive again using whatever means is necessary (including getting them into trouble with the law).
These people have probably felt isolated enough in their own homes and in society when they were young children given the way certain people have treated them. Now society has to isolate them even more and so reinforce the negative behaviour when these people don't know how to do the right thing. Not very smart from the "R-wing" people. How about using more creativity to see through the problems and learn to live within your means, not have what you want from others for the sake of being rich?
- Some Governments of the world are desperately trying to shift public focus on environmental issues to the age-old quick fix solution of employment. Just so long as people are employed then hopefully no one will ever know whether there is a problem in the environment. And by employment, any kind will do.
For example, the Queensland Government is under fire from critics for providing funds to a new Gold Coast company run by unemployed people called Elston Records to produce and distribute to the public a song combining profanity and pornography.
Some critics argue the A$141,000 used to fund the debut record company is a waste of taxpayers money. There should be guidelines in place to ensure more socially-useful activities are implemented with the funds.
Furthermore, such products are not likely to last a long time and thus will end up as landfill. Because the plastics and metal in the products are not likely to breakdown for many thousands of years, the products will add to the woes of an already degraded environment.
But as Employment and Training Minister Tom Barton believes, the song is just a sign of the times and that the money is helping people get out-of-unemployment as part of the department's Breaking the Unemployment Cycle scheme.
- Even in times of increased tax revenues raked in by the Government, one would think some of the money could be used to fund vital "long-term thinking" environmental endeavours such as ensuring adequate low-cost food supplies and natural recycling systems. Unfortunately that is not the case. Because of the large numbers of people that require support and the need for profit, businesses must continue to produce expensive products with little or no built-in recycling mechanisms, and while the Government continues to believe in the idea that businesses (ie. money) and world security (ie. the Defence) will solve all social and environmental problems, the Government feels this is not the time to provide adequate social and environmental support (why not?).
As Australian Labor's treasury spokesman Bob McMullan has discovered, the Federal (Liberal/Howard) Treasurer Peter Costello has managed to increase tax revenues by 15 per cent in the 2001-2002 financial year but has no intentions of working out how to use that revenue to fund the foundations of a stable and secure global community - that is, it's people and the environment (and not everything on Defence and "non-recycling" businesses). As McMullan said:
'...he [Peter Costello] has to explain to the Australian people why pharmaceuticals have to get more expensive and why people with disabilities and the unemployed have to face cuts to services when he is raking in more money than any treasurer has ever done before.' (7)
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
September 2002
The US Government has noticed how well the Australian Government is doing in raking in huge amounts of money from the Australian public through the consuming tax known as GST. So now the US Government has thought of a way for Australia to spend some of that extra money — by joining in the fight against terrorism. First on the list for the US is to deal with Iraq.
- To avoid mentioning the environmental problems, the Government has to use shock statistics such as gazing into the crystal ball and predicting taxes could rise to unprecedented levels (no surprises here if people follow the policies of R-wing governments) just to maintain the standard of living more and more people want to enjoy. Then the Government will suggest the solution is simply to get people to work harder in the same areas supported by the Government without needing to make radical changes to the current economic system.
- The World Bank's East Asia Update released in late April 2005 says poverty in East Asia is falling at an unprecedented rate. It is estimated half of the people under the poverty line of US$2 per day have been raised above this level through more prosperous Asian businesses in Vietnam, China and Indonesia. As Homi Kharas, the World Bank's chief economist, said:
'This is very, very significant for the global battle against poverty. Historically, we have never before seen this kind of pace in poverty alleviation.
'What this means is those people are no longer often hungry and malnourished and locked in a cycle of drudgery. They probably have access to basic health care, their children can probably go to school and they might have a bicycle or motorcycle.' (Williams, Louise. Soaring growth drives millions out of poverty: The Sydney Morning Herald. 30 April-1 May 2005, p.20.)
Despite the economic prosperity, it comes at the expense of the environment. As more rural workers move to the factories creating large slums at the edges of urban centres, businesses are taking over the land and controlling the natural resources, thereby increasing the gap between the wealthy and the people making modest gains in income.
As Kharas said:
'In some places the wealth gap is created by powerful groups gaining control over natural resources and that's a problem. In other cases it's a result of entrepreneurial activity which everyone benefits from.' (Williams, Louise. Soaring growth drives millions out of poverty: The Sydney Morning Herald. 30 April-1 May 2005, p.20.)
In the meantime, the wealthy are making so much money they are trying to find places to invest. But as Kharas warns:
'What can happen with so much money is you can get too much investment in the same sector; you can build too many new airports, or too many new apartments, so some companies will go bankrupt.' (Williams, Louise. Soaring growth drives millions out of poverty: The Sydney Morning Herald. 30 April-1 May 2005, p.20.)
- Ignoring governments and businesses for the moment, one Pakistan-born scientist named Professor Shabaz Khan working at CSIRO irrigation research has gained world recognition for the development of the world's best-practice sustainable irrigation in the Murrumbidgee River catchment. Out of a list of 25 contenders including the Thames, Danube, Mekong and Hudson rivers, the Murrumbidgee River in NSW, Australia, was rated the world's best managed river catchment by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation.
The river is now the "global reference basin", the place where the world can look to for inspiration and advice.
It was all done with persistence, gathering as much information as possible about the problem (in this case, an audit of water losses in the river), and applying basic science for solutions to the benefit of everyone concerned.
It is in the area of gathering information where Professor Khan has developed an effective technique. Apart from placing lots of instruments to measure salinity, evaporation and seepage loses through the soil, Khan has taken the time to consult with as many irrigators along the entire catchment area as possible, develop a rapport and showing how science can assist them (and not stop or deny farmers the opportunity to make a living).
Khan explains the consultation process elegantly when he said, "Research without consultation is insultation."
CSIRO director of environment and natural resources Dr Steve Morton agrees. He said of Khan:
'He's a remarkable scientist, but he also gets such amazing results because he goes out into the field and takes time to listen to people.
'He's motivated by a desire to find out what people think and the links he's formed with the irrigation community are pretty extensive.' (Beeby, Rosslyn. Small changes can prevent big losses: The Canberra Times. 30 April 2005, p.B8.)
Khan successfully achieved his goal by using an array of instruments at his disposal and his natural flair to talk to people. He used ultrasonic flow measurements and electromagnetic imaging equipment to determine the irrigation channels responsible for the greatest water losses, pH meters and salinity detectors (areas of high salt may indicate low river flows and fewer trees in the area), calculated natural evaporation levels, determined the greatest seepage loses in the soil (the greatest loses are in sandy soils), looked over climate records from the last century, and placed underwater cameras to film irrigation channels.
Then, with some patience and persistence, all the data were brought together and analysed. Finally the results and solutions were discussed with the farmers to give their views.
It is a massive undertaking and required detailed analysis of the enormous data obtained in the field and through discussions with many people. As Khan recalls:
'Nothing like this has been done before. It is the most comprehensive study of an irrigation system — from the river to the farm — that has ever been undertaken.' (Beeby, Rosslyn. Small changes can prevent big losses: The Canberra Times. 30 April 2005, p.B8.)
So what did Khan discover after conducting his study? Well, let Khan do all the talking because he is the one whose done the research:
'The problem is that most irrigation channels were not built to be efficient. They were built at a time when their location was determined by cost. Often they were not constructed in the most appropriate part of the landscape when the irrigation areas were developing.
'Their engineering was dominated by choosing the cheapest option — the easiest and cheapest route — to deliver water to the farm, but that has turned out in the long run to be the least water-efficient.' (Beeby, Rosslyn. Small changes can prevent big losses: The Canberra Times. 30 April 2005, p.B8.)
For example by choosing a different part of the landscape with less sandy soil or by putting in concrete lining, water losses would have been significantly less for the farmers. Incredibly, the solutions Khan makes are often the simplest and has the greatest real savings for the benefit of everyone:
'It's good news for farmers because it shows that we can save water — that there are some very simple things that can be done to achieve this.
'The simple message of our research is that we can turn these big water losses into real savings.' (Beeby, Rosslyn. Small changes can prevent big losses: The Canberra Times. 30 April 2005, p.B8.)
Despite the simple solutions, the number of irrigators and irrigation channels along the catchment are large. The cost to implement the solutions is expected to be high. For instance, putting in concrete lining or more solid earth foundations to stop water seepage requires about A$151 million to cover the necessary 500km of leaky irrigation channels.
Other works such as channel diversion and reconstruction, new drip-irrigation systems, upgrading flow-monitoring equipment and piping have their own costs to be calculated.
But Khan is optimistic the costs will be met if everyone sees the benefit of the solutions now and not later. As Khan said:
'We can't just keep talking about saving water as a possibility. We have to take a business approach to solving the problem and look at who will benefit from these savings.
'I don't think you have to look too far into this to realise that everyone will benefit — not just the farmer.
'There are millions of people downstream who are going to benefit from these water savings which will take hard work for farmers to achieve.
'So perhaps those millions of people should help to share the costs.' (Beeby, Rosslyn. Small changes can prevent big losses: The Canberra Times. 30 April 2005, p.B8.)
Now if only the money can be redirected away from Defence spending and into more important long-term projects such as this one. Let's hope we don't need CSIRO to conduct another comprehensive study to determine why humans (eg. politicians) in the cities are not willing to invest in their environment and people.
Like they say, "How many scientific studies does it take to get politicians to spend money for the environment? Answer: Too many, politicians are too busy making promises at election time and then breaking them afterwards."
- A number of ecologists once working for top research organisations has to come out of the woodworks to highlight problems in the way decision-makers in the organisations and in government don't do enough to protect the environment by funding good quality "long-term thinking" and independent scientific work in the field.
A supporter of this view is Australian ecologist Dr Huge Tyndale-Biscoe. After seeing a number of successful scientific programs devoted to the protection of threatened species come to an end and quality scientists in these programs go to waste through forced redundancies, Dr Tyndale-Biscoe expressed his concern over the direction in which CSIRO is heading. Once considered a shining example of research excellence in the 20th century for the benefit of all Australians in any worthwhile scientific endeavour, the 21st century CSIRO is now more concerned about short-term "commercially viable" research and consultancy work for businesses to satisfy the requirements of the Australian Federal Government.
A pioneer in the research on the evolution and biology of marsupials and who worked at CSIRO for 45 years, Dr Tyndale-Biscoe said:
'[CSIRO is] being inexorably changed from an institution that did research for all Australians to one that does consultancies for clients.' (Beeby, Rosslyn. Noted ecologist slams CSIRO: The Canberra Times. 7 May 2005, p.1.)
The problem lies in too much top-down planning or administrators and governments controlling the direction of science through funding based on the premise of purely economic objectives.
Dr Tyndale-Biscoe was also particularly critical of the talent being lost (and described by CSIRO management as "surplus to requirements") due to shutdowns of key programs at CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems:
'One [scientist] has measured blook in the hormones of animals at a dilution of one part per billion; one has modelled how fast foot and mouth disease could spread in feral pig populations in Australia and one has done more than anyone else to develop ways to restore endangered species to their former habitat.
'Their combined salaries were less than that being paid by CSIRO to one communicator with no scientific background.' (Beeby, Rosslyn. Noted ecologist slams CSIRO: The Canberra Times. 7 May 2005, p.1.)
In the past it used to be the scientists who held centre-stage and the administrator second when creating good science. Now the administrators are having the upper hand and telling scientists what to do. Dr Tyndale-Biscoe said:
'I think important scientific expertise is being shut out and that shouldn't be the case in a national research institution that was set up to serve all Australians [and the world].
'I think we need to ask where science is heading, and that includes questioning changes that are being made at CSIRO.
Good scientists have been told they are surplus to requirements, as if they have little value. These people have huge skills, are well below the normal retirement age, and have contributed so much to achieving a better understanding of Australia's biota and ecosystems. It is incredible to think their knowledge will be lost.' (Beeby, Rosslyn. Noted ecologist slams CSIRO: The Canberra Times. 7 May 2005, p.1.)
CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystem chief Dr Andrew Johnson has confirmed only a small number of scientists have been affected by the changes at CSIRO. Dr Johnston said:
'Only a small number of people have been told that their skills are no longer required because they are not aligned to the future direction of the division.' (Beeby, Rosslyn. Noted ecologist slams CSIRO: The Canberra Times. 7 May 2005, p.1.)
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
14 May 2005
CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems chief Dr Andrew Johnson has allegedly cracked down on 13 honorary research fellows still working within the division including Dr Tyndale-Biscoe himself with consequences if they spoke out against the current restructuring taking place at CSIRO following the recent damning allegations from ecologist and honorary research fellow Dr Tyndale-Biscoe at the launch of his book titled Life of Marsupials.
The media have tried to get confirmation on this but CSIRO chief executive Dr Geoff Garrett played down the situation claiming no attempt to silence research fellows has occurred and that people are free to agree or disagree with the restructuring at CSIRO and its direction.
With the media breathing down his neck, Dr Johnson agrees saying you can form your own opinion. However because unpaid research fellows are not CSIRO employees, they are not entitled to make independent comment. As Dr Johnson said:
'They [the research fellows] are guests of this division.
'They are not employees of the organisation. They have been told they are not entitled to make independent comment.' (Beeby, Rosslyn. CSIRO gags retired scientists: The Canberra Times. 14 May 2005, p.1.)
However he doesn't confirm the claim by an anonymous member of the research group that if you do disagree, you should "be prepared to wear it", or resign if you couldn't "live with the changes".
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
2 July 2005
Dr Hugh Tyndale-Biscoe has made it clear he no longer wishes to renew his honorary research fellowship with CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems. The official reason given was because he is concerned about the direction CSIRO is taking through the changes and the treatment of its scientists. Stopping scientists from freely engaging in public debate and cutting back on independent scientific work are among his major concerns for CSIRO. As Dr Tyndale-Biscoe said:
'It is not that the organisation has changed its research priorities; that must always happen. The issue is how the priorities are now determined.
'CSIRO was such a good and successful research institution because it was grounded in the ethos of fearless scientific inquiry' (Beeby, Rosslyn. Top wildlife biologist parts with CSIRO: The Canberra Times. 2 July 2005, p.3.)
- Australian Finance Minister Peter Costello and his budget announcement on Tuesday 10 May 2005 would see tax cuts across the board with the rich enjoying the biggest tax cuts of all and a hefty number of Middle Class people moving into a new tax bracket where they can take home an extra A$1,752 to $A3,002 per year. Whether this is to reward and perhaps to encourage rich people to employ those in less fortunate positions to enter the workforce, or encourage more spending is hard to tell. Or maybe it is the realisation that future services for the aged and the cost of living is going to cost a lot more in the future and the Government is just helping everyone to brace themselves for the brave new economic world we and our children and children's children may be required to live.
One could also argue the Government is lining their expected hefty superannuation payouts in preparation for a likely final 4 years of power so the Ministers can retire comfortably.
Or it may be all of the above.
Totalling a massive A$21.7 billion in tax cuts over four years, one must wonder how much the environment could have benefited from this money? What about helping irrigators to be more water efficient thanks to the excellent work from CSIRO scientist Professor Shabaz Khan?
And how about using the money to pay farmers to protect river systems, grow more trees on the river shoreline to stop fertilisers and quality soil running off into the river systems in drought-prone areas when the rain does finally fall, or helping farmers establish new food growing crops and infrastructure more suited to the dry Australian environment?
Or has the Australian Government given up hope of looking after the environment because it is too expensive and not likely to provide immediate commercial benefits?
- A right-wing Australian think tank known as the Institute of Public Affairs has been influential in the policies of the Australian Federal (Howard) Government by writing opinion articles in Australian newspapers demanding green groups reveal who they represent, where the funding is coming from, and what expertise they have to substantiate their claims.
As senior fellow at the Institute Mr Gary Johns said:
'Why should any government pay for predetermined, usually unsubstantiated and often unscientific advice on the environment?' (Frew, Wendy. No gold for the greens: The Sydney Morning Herald. 14-15 May 2005, p.38.)
And why should Australians pay tax to the Australian Government for unsubstatiated claims of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
Seriously if Mr Johns wants expertise in environmental affairs and he can't quite see it through the green groups, he may be wise to take a look at the official United Nations report on the environment titled, 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment released in March 2005. If over 3,000 scientific experts aren't enough to convince him of the need to preserve our environment, he really needs to get out of his job and join a conservation group for several years before making his right-wing views known in newspapers.
And while he is at it, he can bring a few of his friends from Federal Government to join him as it would appear these politicians running the country have recently slashed funding to green groups involved in advocacy, reduced access for the groups to government, and threatened anyone donating funds to the green groups with no tax deductibility options.
The left-wing think tank Australia Institute views this move by the government as unhelpful. Executive director of the institute Clive Hamilton said:
'There is no question this is about a program to silence and possibly destroy large numbers of environment groups.' (Frew, Wendy. No gold for the greens: The Sydney Morning Herald. 14-15 May 2005, p.38.)
The move marks the beginning of an era where decision-makers in government are quite rightly concerned of the increasing ability of ordinary citizens to influence government policies.
It seems the oil companies of Caltex, Shell and Esso, and the tobacco companies Philip Morris and British American Tobacco are among numerous businesses funding the Institute of Public Affairs to make its views about the green groups known in a successful attempt to influence the government as it goes about trying to stop the green groups from having an influence.
The same should be done with the businesses and the institute if this is the best it can do.
These business connections to the institute were officially confirmed by its executive director in 2003 Mr Mike Nahan and reported in The Sydney Morning Herald.
- A scientist named William S Ruddiman has now suggested in the April edition of Scientific American that the last Ice Age nearly 10,000 years ago ended because of human impact on climate through agriculture and livestock. Evidence for his claims can be read from the article.
So what will Mr Howard leading his motley crew on the right-wing SS-Titanic going to do now? Stick to his plan as he heads for an iceberg? Or change course for a brighter future?
- As of 2005, the drought in Australia is taking a heavy toll on farmers. The Federal (Howard) Government is having to pay farmers a basic living wage until better seasons return or else find alternative work in the cities. How about taxpayers paying farmers to stay on the land and fix up the environment?
- Politicians try to complicate the term sustainability in terms of various things of which all ultimately favour their economic "continuous growth" aims. The reality is the economics of manufacturing and primary industry for supplying the raw materials and creating the foods for society must be dependent on a sustainable natural environment. You don't have a "sustainable economy" by balancing the expenses and costs in a budget and the environment is just an external "thing" that may need to be considered.
The environment is the basis of life. Economics is a thing that is part of life and the environment if we choose to live in a materialistic world and money is the dominant theme for society.
Some people will talk about sustainability as a process of "maximising performance with respect to all aspects of human development". Yes, we must do our best in achieving goal(s) given the resources available. But it does not explain how to "maximise performance". To a business professional, "maximising performance" simply means working harder, taking out more resources from the environment, and selling more products and services.
The idea of "maximising performance" is an economic term often used to hide the real definition for sustainability.
The concept of sustainability had its origin in the environment. And it simply means "recycling everything that you do". In other words, it means using and reusing what you've got to achieve your goal(s).
It is very simple.
It doesn't matter if what we use has short-term or long-term benefits to society. We think long-term by applying "recycling principles". But the things we make can last any amount of time.
The crucial thing in understanding sustainability is to "recycle".
Other people may describe sustainability as researching, deciding on options, getting the public to be involved in decision-making. Sustainability is really the end result of all this human activity. When we are not recycling properly, this is what we should be doing. But once we work out how to recycle, can we apply the term sustainability to the outcome.
People will use the term for different systems such as "social sustainability", "economic sustainability", "environmental sustainability" and so on. All it means is ensuring what goes in and comes out from the systems can go back in again with no waste along the way.
Sustainability is recycling.
- The voices of 23 big business leaders concerned about climate change are finally being heard. Multinational giants such as the car maker Ford, airline British Airways, the bank of HSBC, and electricity generator EdF and oil company BP all agreed in June 2005 that the evidence for climate change is compelling and urged world governments of the richest nations to take urgent action.
As world leaders from the eight richest nations prepare for their G8 summit between 6-8 July 2005, leaders from big businesses calling themselves the G8 Climate Change Roundtable met to discuss the environmental problem. It follows similar appeals from the world's top scientists.
As the multinational companies officially announced to media observers:
'We share the belief that climate change poses one of the most significant chanllenges of the 21st century.
'We agree that the science is sufficiently compelling to warrant action by both the private and public sector, and action must be initiated now.' (The Canberra Times: Business joins calls for action on climate. 11 June 2005, p.19.)
The businesses are calling for a global action plan from the G8 world leaders.
Head of the environmental lobby group Friends of the Earth, Mr Tony Juniper, expressed enthusiasm for the statement as the global movement towards protecting the environment builds to fever pitch. Juniper said:
'Just a few years ago large international business and environment groups were on opposite sides of the fence. This statement shows just how far big business has moved.' (The Canberra Times: Business joins calls for action on climate. 11 June 2005, p.19.)
- Some governments have to resort to nuclear energy as the only immediate and viable solution to climate change, In fact many government will describe this as the most practical and rational solution to the environmental problem. However, a practical and rational solution in the governments' eyes simply means the lowest-cost and one that doesn't impede on progress and growth in the business world, not necessarily the best solution for humanity.
For example, increasing talk of climate change in governments is starting to see the NSW Premier Bob Carr discuss nuclear power plants instead of coal-fired power generation as the immediate and practical (ie. lowest-cost) solution to the greenhouse gas problem.
But this isn't the only solution to climate change. The loss of vegetation and the greater difficulty in reestablishing fresh water and healthy vegetation inland because of the lack of vegetation and increases in evaporation is another side to this climate change debate.
Then we must tackle human population levels and what it means to do business in the 21st century.
Does it mean we can continue to support up to 10 billion people in the world by 2050 while businesses take greater amounts of water and vegetation out of the environment as raw materials for producing products (eg. Coca-Cola and housing) or through land-clearing without giving back to the environment and recycling what is produced or destroyed?
No. There has to be a new paradigm of thinking and a new way of living and doing things. We are the caretakers of this planet and we must prove how responsible we are in looking after this planet because it is our life-support system. It is not for our pleasure to plunder and do as we so wish in the hope we can make as much money as we can. The planet cannot sustain this kind of thinking anymore. We now have to think in terms of our survival.
What's more important — money, or our survival?
- Many people in the fossil-fuel industries refuse to be convinced of the increasing and highly credible scientific evidence for the direct relationship between human activity through the use of fossil fuel and other means and the climate change we are experiencing today.
Some supporters of the industries will argue the Earth has been warmer than this nearly 100 million years ago. Why should humanity be concerned by climate change today?
The reason is simple. Over 100 million years ago, we had a dense, thick rainforest covering virtually the entire supercontinent. This is the key to managing climate change in a natural way.
Today, the rainforest remaining on this planet is quickly being destroyed by humans. You only have to look at Brazil, Indonesia and the Phillippines for evidence to support this statement. The vegetation for controlling climate change in a natural way is disappearing. And there is not enough being done to counteract or control the greenhouse gas emissions humans are creating.
Once the vegetation is sufficiently sparse, ground water quickly evaporates. The organisms in the soil die off. Soon the naturally rich, dark organic matter of the soil slowly bakes into a light-brown coloured dry and dusty substance making it harder for humans to regrow vegetation. And the air will become drier and hotter. Eventually the land will turn into a sterile desert where the only water you will find is in the oceans. No other life may exist except for some humans who will need technology to keep them alive.
We can imagine these humans will be the elite, super rich people who can afford to pay for the technology.
If we do reach this point of no return, then the only way humans can begin to reverse the damage is by growing a plant up their own bums. No doubt there should be some moisture and plenty of manure (we've been hearing a lot of it so far) to keep the plants healthy while they do their job of absorbing some of the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
But clearly this isn't realistic. As much as some people would like to see some politicians and business professionals grow a tree trunk out of their backsides as contribution to a healthier environment, the reality is humans must now stop any business activity leading to the creation of greenhouse gases, or learn to create a massive new industry of reversing the damage, or else humans must face the consequences.
Already those consequences are starting to be felt, at increasing cost to the economy.
The only way we can force governments to abandon their economic ambitions or to at least change current means of doing business to ones that support one-hundred per cent recycling and purely renewable energy sources is for the community as a whole to make sweeping decisions.
Those decisions must be based on exactly what it is people need to do in life and how it can be achieved in an environmentally-friendly way. For example, can we work from home instead of taking out the car and travelling to work all the time? Do we need power-hungry air-conditioners and other electrical and electronic appliances to meet our needs?
Do we need to eat more than we need to? Can we exercise more, use a bicycle to reach our destination, or grow our own food to minimise our energy demands?
Should we bring another baby into this world, or can we achieve more and in an environmentally-friendly way with fewer people?
Should we continue to let governments spend a trillion dollars on weapons and defence every year when such money can virtually eliminate poverty and rebuild the environment to a healthy level right now?
These are the sorts of questions we must ask. The decisions we make based on those questions will determine whether humanity lives or dies in the next 25 years.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
2 July 2005
UK Prime Minister is quite rightly concentrating on more important world issues than any kind of terrorism against Western nations by Middle East Islamic fundamentalists as the Bush Administration would so much love to do. Environmental terrorism from businesses within Western nations creating such problems as climate change is considered a far greater problem for humanity. And so too is the world problem of poverty.
Already there is a real possibility Mr Blair will create a rift with the US during the G8 summit to be held later this month in Scotland. So much so that it could isolate the US while the remaining 7 nations agree in communique in getting concerted action to tackle global warming and poverty.
If the US won't take the lead on the environment and humanitarian issues, it is time other countries set the example.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
8 July 2005
World leaders at the G8 summit have agreed to take immediate steps to curb global warming. Although exactly how is not clear. The only thing to put a big fizzer on the whole summit, apart from the terrorist attack in London, is the way US President George W. Bush tries to stick to his position.
Mr Bush knows his country is a major guzzler of oil. The US dependency on oil puts to shame many other countries. Yet despite all its money and technology, it still cannot find a clean and renewable energy source capable of replacing oil dependency. Perhaps the concern is that a renewable energy source could see people spend a lot less on energy (if any) and that would definitely be a real bummer to the business leaders and their shareholders.
Certainly various interesting ideas have been put forward by US scientists, some have been implemented such as high-efficiency solar panels, while a few have been kept secret by the US military such as radio wave to electricity conversion for the sake of stopping people discover a bigger secret.
But Mr Bush is still not prepared to set concrete targets for his nation. The economy is too important in his mind. For if the economy is okay, Mr Bush has an excellent chance of staying in power and the US military will hopefully maintain its big secret for a little longer.
But at the same time, Mr Bush knows he doesn't want to be seen as a pariah in the sea of humanity wanting to seek and implement real creative solutions to climate change. To be left out on a limb would spell almost certain political and possibly economic disaster for Mr Bush and his cohorts including top US military brass wanting to keep a lid on the big UFO secret. So Mr Bush has kept a door open for future dialogue about the climate change issues.
Mr Bush is also trying to appease the leaders and the UN with a pledge to double US foreign aid to Africa over the next five years to $8.6 billion. Well, the US has the money so it can. But it isn't really an original solution. Let's face it, the money will help some Africans to survive a little easier in the immediate sense. But we need much more longer term solutions of a non-monetary nature (eg. self-education in growing foods, repairing the environment, how to build homes, conflict resolution and population control) instead of forcing people to accept the economy, receive the money, and then hope the money will be used properly.
As G. O'Gorman of Binalong, NSW, said:
'If the enormous riches of Africa were disbursed throughout the continent, there would be no poverty there.
'Figures released by Nigeria's anti-corruption committee show $500 billion was stolen or misused during the first four decades of independence.' (The Sunday Telegraph: Enormous riches (Your Say). 10 July 2005, p.88.)
Money is not the permanent solution to world problems. Mr Bush should have explained how his country intends to generate long-term solutions rather than throwing more money at the problem.
In the meantime Mr Bush has reaffirmed his commitment to continue researching new energy solutions so that hopefully the US can move away from the polluting energies without harming economic growth.
Ignoring the thorn in the side of world leaders from the US, all the leaders can do now is to present to the public and media a very positive outcome from the meeting. Well, they have to. People will ultimately have the final say if leaders can't do the right thing in this world.
Understandably, environmentalists described the agreement from the G8 summit as "utterly meaningless" according to Philip Clapp, the president of America's National Environmental Trust. As Clapp said:
'...[the agreement is] utterly meaningless, the weakest statement on climate change ever made by the G8.
'The G8 leaders did not agree on a single concrete action [apart from agreeing something must be done] to address climate change. Not one new dollar was committed by any country to develop technologies — they just told the World Bank to go do it with no new financing.' (Eilperin, Juliet. Bush resists tougher action on warming: The Sydney Morning Herald. 9-10 July 2005, p.19.)
Could this agreement be an admission by world leaders they have no real solution on climate change so long as they continue to see the importance of the economy for maintaining political power? Are world leaders afraid the sky would fall on them if they decided to do the right thing?
As for the US trying to stick to its guns where it can, this is self-evident when executive director of Greenpeace Stephen Tindale said:
'President Bush is isolated from the 12 other countries who have all emphasised the need for tough targets to reduce CO2 emissions.' (Eilperin, Juliet. Bush resists tougher action on warming: The Sydney Morning Herald. 9-10 July 2005, p.19.)
- The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a report in June 2005 with statements from the science academies of 11 countries including all the G8 nations warning:
'It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions.' (The Canberra Times: It's getting hotter around the globe and this will continue: experts. 9 July 2005, p.15.)
Scientists say concentrations of carbon dioxide are now 370 parts per million (ppm) and rising. In 1958, the concentrations were 315ppm. If the concentrations reach 400ppm, scientists expect a 2 degree increase in world temperatures which they believe is the critical point where "the risks to human soxieties and ecosystems grow significantly".
This could happen in the next few years. Certainly computer simulations are suggesting a rise of anywhere between 1.4 to 5.8 degrees over the period 1990 to 2100.
The US National Aeronautics and Space Administration has added its weight to the report saying 2005 will be the warmest year since records began.
Scientists have further calculated that in order to halt global warming, carbon dioxide emissions must be reduced by 60 per cent from 1990 levels. We are talking about 1990, not 2005! The 1995 Kyoto Protocol has no hope of reaching this target. Even with the best estimates, the Kyoto Protocol will only be able to reduce the carbon dioxide emission levels by 5.2 per cent by 2010 from the 1990 levels.
Effectively the Kyoto Protocol is a waste of time. Nations have to be serious at reducing carbon dioxide emissions now and substantially beyond the expectations of any official protocol.
And the country setting the worse example to the world is the US. Scientists believe this nation alone generates 24 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions and yet Mr Bush doesn't want to ratify the Kyoto Protocol (the US would only sign to agree in principle to the idea) for a modest reduction. When the levels are combined with G8 nations, the figure is said to be closer to 45 percent of greenhouse gas emissions.
To add to the disgrace of the Bush Administration, Mr Bush didn't want to accept the statement in the draft G8 statement on climate change of "Our world is warming".
This so-called world leader from the word's richest nation is clearly contradicting the research from 2000 scientific experts which said in the climate change panel report that "...most of the warming observed over the past 50 years is attributable to human activity." (The Canberra Times: It's getting hotter around the globe and this will continue: experts. 9 July 2005, p.15.)
How much clearer do we need to be for action to be taken now?
- While a a small band of hard core R-wing people running the Bush Administration don't wish to acknowledge the Earth is warming, another group of slightly R-wing people running businesses (eg. the oil companies) and their scientists are acknowledging the warming. The only difference is that these people don't wish to see humans as being mostly responsible. Instead, these people have said they have found a natural source of methane emitting from the ocean floor in the Timor Sea. It is said this natural emission of methane has been occuring for millions of years according to the way the lifeforms in the oceans continue to exist. Because methane is 20 times more effective at trapping heat, these slightly R-wing people are arguing the Earth may be warming, but it is all natural.
So its business as usual.
- The Australian Federal (Howard) Government has acknowledged climate change will occur (as opposed to saying it is here and needs immediate action), temperatures will rise, and Australians should brace themselves for more extreme weather over the next 30 years according to a report released on 26 July 2005 titled Climate Change Risks and Vulnerability. By putting the time frame in a future context and saying climate change will occur anytime in the next 30 to 50 years means the Government and everyone else in the business world don't actually have to do anything right now, but we should be prepared to do certain things in 30 years time.
As Environment Minister Ian Campbell said:
'It [the report] could be painted as alarming but the reality is that these changes will happen over time. They area talking about a 30-50 year time span.
'What we need to know as a nation, what the state governments need to know, what the emergency services need to know, town planners need to know, is where are these risks the most likely to occur in the short term.
'We know that our climate is already highly variable, making us vulnerable to future climate change caused by global greenhouse emissions.
'We need look no further than the economic and social impacts of prolonged periods of drought to understand the importance of climate.' (The Canberra Times: Don't panic on climate change, warns Govt. 27 July 2005, p.1.)
The report does try to play down the seriousness of the climate change situation today. But on the positive side, it at least does face the upcoming reality. For example, the report confirms that sea levels will rise, more ferocious cyclonic weather patterns will be the norm in the northern parts of Australia, and greater floods and longer hotter droughts will appear throughout the Australian continent. So what do we do? We will have to wait for another expensive reportto come along to explain what the Government can do to curb greenhouse gas emissions, and perhaps another report to explain when the ideas will be implemented.
As opposition environment spokesman Mr Anthony Albanese said:
'It's one thing to say it's not a cause for alarm, it is another thing to say it's not a cause for action.
'What this report and other reports show is that the world is headed for an environmental tsunami.
'Australia needs to be part of the international efforts to combat dangerous climate change.
'We need to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, we need to increase our mandatory renewable energy targets and we should have a national emissions trading scheme.' (The Canberra Times: Don't panic on climate change, warns Govt. 27 July 2005, p.1.)
- The White Paper issued by the Australian Federal Government in 2004 is believed to have been influenced by fossil fuel, energy and mining industries according to Gwen Andrews, a former chief executive of the Australian Greenhouse Office, and documents released under FoIA from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. The documents show multinational companies such as BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and the American oil giant Exxon Mobil were warning the Government that any reduction in emissions might affect investments.
One document showed BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto were saying a national emissions trading scheme was "premature". In another document, Exxon Mobil said the evidence for climate change was inconclusive and thought "investments in current renewable energy technology are not economical".
A further document claimed the Minerals Council of Australia didn't see the value of reducing emissions to reach certain targets. It said such a target "should be avoided" at all costs.
And nearly all fossil fuel companies suggested research into geosequestration, or burying carbon dioxide from coal-fired power stations in large reservoirs underground, should be pursued as the preferred approach to any form of emission reductions in the future.
According to the Australian Electoral Commission, five big resource companies donated over $1.69 million to the Coalition (ie. Federal Government) between 1998 and 2004. Labor received $412,311 from the same sources over the same period.
Add to this the chief government scientist Mr Robin Batterham who couldn't be described as exactly impartial and independent because of his executive position at Rio Tinto and his strong beliefs in geosequestration that it becomes ludricrous to go any further.
In fact, we won't mention Mr Howard's nephew Mr Lyall Howard acting as Rio Tinto's government affairs manager.
"Verging on the corrupt" and "definitely not in the national interest" in the words of scientist and author Tim Flannery, a number of observers can't help noticing the link. As Clive Hamilton, executive director of The Australia Institute, said:
'The Government is in the pocket of the fossil fuel lobby, there is no doubt about it.' (Baker, Richard. Industry's hand guides climate plan: The Sydney Morning Herald. 30-31 July 2005, p.8.)
And Ms Andrews said:
'There was a consistent underlying theme to their arguments that if Australia implemented any policy measures that raised the cost of doing business for them, they would have to consider the wisdom of investing further in Australia...Government ministers seemed to be heavily influenced by this line of argument.' (Baker, Richard. Industry's hand guides climate plan: The Sydney Morning Herald. 30-31 July 2005, p.8.)
In the meantime, Origin Energy Ltd posted a record sales for 2004-05 of A$389.4 million. This is a 17 per cent increase from the 2003-04 figure of A$331.8 million. If costs remain about the same, analysts expect a bumper profit. Much of this sale was the result of an increase in oil production in the Perth basin, over 2 million extra barrels of oil for the year.
Don't expect the profit to be used to fund renewable energy sources. Shareholders would not have a bar on that one.
- As of September 2005, scientists concerned with global warming are saying it is too late to halt the greenhouse gas problem if humanity suddenly stopped all carbon dioxide emissions throughout the world right now. The current levels of greenhouse gases are already enough to completely melt most glaciers in the world including all the ice on the Kilamanjara Mountain in Africa. Scientists on major expeditions to the world's glaciers are finding irrefutable evidence of their disintegration through melting.
A few opposing scientists are suggesting there is nothing to worry about. The earth has gone through periods of warmth so it won't be long before the next period of cooling will arrive. So why worry?
Try telling that to the few hundred million environmental refugees expected to leave the low-lying islands and coastal regions to higher ground in the next 25 years. It would make the cost of fighting a war in Iraq look like chicken feed!
NOTE: The US Government, under pressure to act, has already been forced to spend at least US$60 billion to help fix up the damage, provide housing, support emergency services and ensure the displaced people of New Orleans have their survival needs met in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in September 2005. That's one city in need of assistance. Multiply this figure many times over for the displaced environmental refugees expected to take place within our lifetimes, and what do we have? Do we have the economic capability and resources on this planet to help all these people? Probably not unless we all pay much higher taxes. And that will only exacerbate the problems of those individuals and families who are struggling to pay for their mortgages and the higher costs of food. At some point, the economic system will break, forcing people to live a free subsistence living growing foods on the land, rebuilding the environment and helping one another in these all too important tasks for humanity because no one could be bothered doing it now. Or the human population has to go down. And how do we propose to do that? Through war? Or letting people fend for themselves and die as the US Government appeared willing to do at first for the people of New Orleans?
Yes, it is true the Earth has had periods of warmth and at times it has been warmer in the past than today. But how is nature coping? Is it able to counteract the current global warmth? Apparently not. Too many trees are being cleared and buildings and agriculture are taken the place of the trees. What will counteract the global warming? By plugging up our backside with a rubber bung?
Get serious! Unless humans are prepared to do it technogically speaking, then we have no choice but to change our attitude to the natural environment. It is time we look after what we've got and build the technology to regenerate the environment to a level we can be sure will restore the balance.
As for the sceptics of global warming, it is time they leave the computer behind and their cosy abodes in the cities and start to make some actual observations of what is happening in the world today.
- The Australian Federal Government's solution to environmental problems as of September 2005 is to create distraction in the media with news of the latest anti-terrorism measures and legislation as Australia slowly turns into a police/stalinist state. Also as economics (ie. the world of finance) dominate the thinking of the Australian Government, Australian Prime Minister John Howard has asked the executives of Telstra not to reveal the true state of the company to those investors deciding to cut their losses and sell their shares and especially to new potential investors as the Government tries to pass through legislation allowing it to sell off its half share of the company and use the money to pay for the next round of election advertising in 2008 as well as the costs of fighting a war in Iraq.
- "We need many more facts and a lot less hysteria," said Professor Bob Carter of James Cook University (ABC Television: 7.30 Report 26 September 2005). He does not believe humans are the weather makers through the greenhouse emissions. Dr Carter justifies this by saying if all nations stopped all emissions, the temperatures would not drop significantly. That's right, the plants of Earth are not quite significant enough and healthy enough to mop up the carbon dioxide.
If the plants are in great quantities and have enough water to keep them healthy, temperatures could drop significantly over a few decades.
It also depends on what it is you are comparing the temperature to. If the temperature is measured compared to a year before the end of all emissions, the temperature difference would be virtually insignificant. But when compared to 200 years ago or up to 5,000 years ago, the temperature difference is much more significant — between 3 and 5 degrees celsius.
Dr Carter thinks if humans are affecting the climate then no emissions should result in an immediate and dramatic drop in temperature. But because the drop will be insignificant, it cannot be due to human activity.
Surely there must be something wrong with this argument.
- Well, here's another fact for Professor Carter to look into if he hasn't done so already (still think it is hysteria?): NASA scientists have confirmed on 29 September 2005 that the rate of melting in the Arctic has increased beyond expectation. All ice in this part of the world will completely melt in less than 60 years leaving behind the Arctic ocean. The rate of melting is so quick that scientists are confident no natural event is causing it — it has to be the responsibility of human beings.
The last time no ice existed over the North Pole was nearly 1 million years ago.
The Antarctic is also melting ice, but not as quickly and tends to be in pocketed areas where ice covers the southern oceans and not so much over the Antarctic land.
- Australian scientist Dr Tim Flannery is concerned the data he used in his book titled The Weather Makers — The History and Future Impact of Climate Change is seriously outdated. Dr Flannery now concedes ocean acidification caused by the increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere being absorbed by the world's oceans to create mild acids, one of which is carbonic acid, will have a detrimental effect on the survival of shellfish (their protective calcium carbonate covers will dissolve in a mild acid). In his book, Dr Flannery stated the problem of ocean acidification would be strongly felt in several hundred years from now (perhaps around the 23rd century).
Researcher Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, D.C. has also lend his weight to support Dr Flannery's concerns. In computer models he developed and with evidence from the fossil record, Caldeira was successfully able to predict the extent the ocean acidification problem will persist and to what degree of damage it could do. And what he found had rather chilling ramifications for life in the oceans (and ultimately humans who depend on the fish as a source of food).
Caldeira said:
'The finding offers a glimpse of what the future might hold for ocean life if society does not drastically curb carbon dioxide emissions.
'The geologic record tells us the chemical effects of ocean acidification would last tens of thousands of years. But biological recovery could take millions of years. Ocean acidification has the potential to cause extinction of many marine species.
'When carbon dioxide from the burning of coal, oil, and gas dissolves in the ocean, some of it becomes carbonic acid. Over time, accumulation of this carbonic acid makes ocean water more acidic.' (World Science.com and the Carnegie Institution of Washington, D.C.: Acidifying oceans could trigger mass extinction, researcher warns. 21 February 2006.)
Carnegie predicts that before 2100, the pH level in the oceans could drop from a natural value of 8.2 to about 7.7 (where a lower number represents a more acidic environment). If the present trend in acidifying the oceans continues because of carbon dioxide emissions, the mass extinction in the oceans will be as great as the ancient mass extinction of 65 million years ago when the dinosaurs disappeared.
And it won't be just the calcium-rich shellfish that will die. Caldeira sees coral reefs and many of the marine organisms dependent on the reefs disappearing for good all because of ocean acidification.
- More computer models and this time other scientists have a more frightening story to tell.
Based on computer analysis, humanity is looking at a time frame of a few decades before serious droughts, floods, fire and chemical imbalances in nature kill off a significant amount of life on Earth. All previous estimates were too conservative. And we haven't included the environmental refugees of humanity who will have to migrate from the coastal regions and low-lying islands and move inland or find another country. And that could result in greater wars than ever before as the pressure for people to survive start to affect everyone else.
We are in serious trouble.
There is no more debate. The time for action is now. It is time people defy governments and their economic goals. Governments, especially the R-wing types, are only interested in spending money on the military to help protect their own economic interests such as the oil in Iraq while esconding themselves behind a fortress of security and intelligence officers as they live a life of luxury. All this while the rest of the world has to deal with the environmental and social changes as we struggle to survive.
Economics is a secondary issue to the environment. Humanity and all of life on Earth at this precise moment in the history of this planet depends on you and us to contribute in any tiny way to saving of this planet.
If you need inspiration, try this quote for size from Dr Flannery:
'Some are still sceptical and for others it's all new, but for the great majority of people in the middle it's like a dam wall giving way, a rush of emotion [saying] "I finally understand what is happening".
'This [global warming problem] is different to other environmental issues such as saving the Tasmanian forests, which would necessitate political action, as there is nothing I can do as an individual to change it.
'But with climate change, turn off those lights and you are doing something, buy a solar hot water system and you are doing something.
'The problem is just accumulated, tiny wastes of energy, and that is an important and powerful message.' (Streak, Diana. Scientist watches as predictions hit home early: The Canberra Times. 1 October 2005, p.5.)
As all this occurs, the Australian Federal (Howard) Government is ignoring the environment in favour of pushing its own self-centered agenda of extending parliamentary terms to four years, instead of three, thinking it has done a good enough job for society to be permitted this privilege. But as Dr Flannery said:
'I am concerned about this [Australian Federal] government because government can be a very powerful force to address this issue, as we have seen in the United Kingdom, or they can be a block in the system as we have seen with Australia, Monaco, Liechtenstein and the USA — all Kyoto renegades.' (Streak, Diana. Scientist watches as predictions hit home early: The Canberra Times. 1 October 2005, p.5.)
The Federal Government has a lot of work to do. It will have to do a lot more by way of protecting the environment. And even then, the Government must have a social conscious where looking after its citizens is paramount and allowing people to contribute their own work for the benefit of society without constantly expecting a profit will be the key to progressing humanity beyond the present-day shackles of life. Only then, after it has met its environmental and socially responsibilities can it possibly consider an extension to its parliamentary term. Until that time comes, it must prove to the people it can do the right thing.
And so far there is no sufficient evidence to prove the Australian Federal Government has done enough for humanity.
- One person named Hugh D. Campbell of Fraser in the ACT summed up the views of Professor Bob Carter in one simple quote:
'I did chuckle at Professor Bob Carter's unintentionally humorous article on human-induced global warming, or rather, the supposed lack of it ("All the signs of full-blown Mother Earthism", Herald, September 29).
'An assortment of polemicists also thought that HIV didn't cause AIDS, that CFCs didn't affect the ozone layer, that cholesterol levels had no relation to heart attacks and strokes and that cigarettes didn't cause lung cancer. Before them, some thought that the Earth did not revolve around the sun, or even that it was flat.
'How does Professor Carter explain that the Arctic ice cap may disappear within a few decades, the first time this has happened for a million years? Or is it just a misleading coincidence that this has happened at a time when greenhouse gases are rising sharply due to human activity?' (The Sydney Morning Herald: Global warming not our fault, and the Earth is flat. 1-2 October 2005, p.30.)
Other people disagree saying Professor Carter's views represent those of many of his scientific colleagues. As Peter Maresch of Lane Cove, NSW, said:
'Kate Ravich's letter (Herald, September 30) is an example of the scare techniques of the greenhouse lobby. Anyone who doesn't fall into line with those screaming global catastrophe must have an "agenda".
'Professor Carter's observations reflect the mainstream views of his peers, that climate change is within the normal range of Earth's experience over the past million years [in fact things were warmer over 180 million years ago when the dinosaurs roamed the Earth]. Seventeen thousand of the world's scientists signed the Oregon Petition to this effect. It is only the fringe dwellers who extrapolate current data to blame human activity, and then draw a further long bow to suggest we could regulate the planet's climate.' (The Sydney Morning Herald: Global warming not our fault, and the Earth is flat. 1-2 October 2005, p.30.)
The only problem with this statement is that the signing of the Oregon Petition may have taken place some time ago when the data was not up-to-date and taking into account enough factors. Perhaps scientists should sign another petition today to see how many would continue to support Professor Carter's position.
However, Naomi Blackburn of Bondi in NSW put it bluntly the likely agenda Professor Carter may be hiding when stating his views:
'Bob Carter is not known for his scientific views but rather for his climate sceptic views. He could best be described as "a prominent research geoligist with a personal interest in the issue of climate change" from looking at his research papers on James Cook University's website, none of which relates to climate change — or anything much above the ground.
'One suspects there will not be as many research grants available for geologists in a post-fossil fuel economy.' (The Sydney Morning Herald: Global warming not our fault, and the Earth is flat. 1-2 October 2005, p.30.)
Well, maybe Professor Carter is right in that it really isn't the fault of humans in creating the greenhouse gases. Perhaps we should be blaming it on all the other animals on this planet. Or is Professor Carter saying we shouldn't blame the problem on any living thing? As Carolyn Wills of Cremorne, NSW, said:
'Have the scientists now decided that all the farting cattle aren't a problem any more?' (The Sydney Morning Herald: Global warming not our fault, and the Earth is flat. 1-2 October 2005, p.30.)
Oops! Maybe we shouldn't mention the cattle. Otherwise computer modelling might make the problem more intractably worse for humanity!
- US President George W. Bush is being overwhelmed by the amount of scientific evidence emerging about the environment today and how this could potentially undermine the US economy and the chance to make substantial profits as well as keep certain US military secrets secret (eg. UFOs). So now the President is resorting to a bit of religion of his own by convincing people there are things scientists don't know about and therefore a chance things could get better by maintaining the economy. In other words, Mr Bush wants people to believe God will save humanity and the environment.
Among the first steps heading in this direction is the introduction of "intelligent design" or God into the science curriculum of christian-based schools.
It may be true through a study of Einstein's Unified Field Theory that (i) the concept of God as a paradoxical entity we should all strive to reach and understand in a cyclic manner may have scientific support; and that (ii) no matter how much science is done, there is always something we don't fully understand about this universe (ie. science needs to acknowledge a mystery about this universe if people are to have the curiosity to study anything unknown or mysterious through science), it would be dangerous to assume that because something is not fully understood or explained that it must be proof of "intelligent design". So long as we are genuinely cu
