The campaign to stop mining
November, 15 2006
By Jennifer Marohasy
Across the world too many people still live in poverty. A new feature-length documentary by former Financial Times journalist Phelim McAleer explains how environmental activists are part of the problem.
Mr McAleer visits controversial mine sites in remote Madagascar, Chile and Romania and interviews local young men who want the jobs and opportunities offered by the mines, while media savvy western environmentalists campaign to stop development and save the environment and the “quaint” lifestyles of the poor villagers.
Read the complete article:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5157
The documentary will be screening in Sydney, Hobart, Perth and Melbourne next week. After the screening there will be opportunity for discussion with Phelim McAleer. For more information and to reserve your place visit: http://ipa.org.au/events/event_detail.asp?eventid=120 .
Bring dingoes back to stop species extinction
November 2, 2006
By Rachel Nowak
Bizarrely, reintroducing dingoes – Australia’s top natural predator – could improve the survival of smaller marsupial species that they often prey on, researchers say. The Eastern hare-wallaby? Gone. The lesser bilby? Gone. In the past two centuries, 18 mammals have gone extinct in Australia, accounting for almost half the mammalian extinctions in the world over that time period. Biologists usually blame that infamous record on a complex set of circumstances, including changes in how people use fire to clear land, the introduction of rabbits and disease, and sheep farming. But, according to a surprise finding from a team led by Chris Johnson at James Cook University in Townsville, the true cause is far simpler – the persecution of mainland Australia’s one and only top predator, the dingo.
Read the complete article:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10432-bring-dingoes-back-to-stop-species-extinction-.html
The Climate change industry’s stake in Kyoto
November 15, 2006
By Bart Mongoven
Negotiators in Nairobi, Kenya, are preparing to wrap up two weeks of discussions about the future of international cooperation on climate change. The conference — officially the second meeting of parties to the Kyoto Protocol — gathered to discuss what comes after Kyoto, which will not be in force after 2012. Central to the discussions have been questions about gaining U.S. participation in the treaty, winning emissions-reductions commitments from major developing countries (such as China and India), and determining the strength of the international community’s commitment to drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
The talks in Nairobi also have revealed the new role that a diverse group of companies will play in the future of the climate change debate. These companies come from many industries, but they share a common interest in finding ways to profit from global concerns about climate change — particularly the provisions in the Kyoto treaty intended to better control greenhouse gas emissions. This industry bloc includes the major innovators in the cleantech sector, but it also includes older industries that are finding ways to make small adjustments in their business processes in ways that, due to Kyoto’s market mechanisms, now yield significant revenues.
Read the complete article:
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=280649
Consumer Awareness of Biotechnology – Separating Fact from Fiction
November 6, 2006
By Terry Etherton
There are many important aspects that consumers and dairy producers [in the US] need to appreciate about rbST-free milk*. These include: 1) defending the right of dairy producers to use a safe and effective biotechnology that improves profitability; 2) the tactics employed by some cooperatives to “persuade” producers to stop using the biotechnology (these involve paying a small premium for discontinuing use or levying a charge if use of rbST continues); and 3) the rationale used by some cooperatives, processors and retailers that rbST-free milk is being promoted in the marketplace because of consumer concern about the technology. My view is that the latter argument is simply a “manufactured” justification since there is no evidence from well-organized and conducted surveys of consumer attitudes about food safety that indicates there is any basis to make this distinction from a food safety perspective.
Read the complete article:
http://blogs.das.psu.edu/tetherton/?p=51
*rbST is the synthetic version of a natural growth hormone used by dairy farmers in the US since 1994 to increase milk production. It is banned in Canada, Australia and the EU.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
The anti rBST campaign is just as interesting as the pro-organic campaign.
One aspect of each is that the resulting product cannot be tested to prove what it is. In other words, there is no lab test which can prove a food is organic. And there is no lab test which can prove milk has come from cows not given rBST.
The obvious conclusion is that these movements cannot prove an advantage to the consumer.
Some proponents are honest enough to say that the consumer who buys organic or non- rBST products are purchasing healthy dirt or healthy cows.
However, studies have shown conclusively that organic farming practices increase soil erosion and deplete mineral resources, and that organic cows suffer from malnutrition and lack of medical care.
Consumer concerns over rBST are far more artificial than rBST itself. The unfortunate thing is that junk science is trotted out as marketing so often that legitimate science becomes suspect.
Mine yr own bus – Some questions for you Jennifer:
Do you recommend this film because you think it takes an objective and balanced view of the evidence?
If you think the content of the movie is selected to support the film maker’s outlook then perhaps you feel this is warranted to ‘balance the scales’ on political films?
Schiller yr organic analogy is puss weak. Down here we can spot a framing attempt at parallel slurring like that a mile away (regardless of our opinion on organics). If you’d like us to realise how safe and beneficial rBST is then perhaps you could cough up something a little more solid.
As for Jennifer’s link to Terry’s blog, there’s no information about the safety of rBST. It talks about consumer sentiment. That’s marketing, not science.
Apparently Terry has “written previously, there is no difference between rbST-free milk versus milk from cows supplemented with rbST” but why not chuck in a link to the science? And there’s the other half of the argument on rBST -> negative cow sentiment (rBST causes bovine suffering?).
My copy of Mine Your own Business has finally arrived, and I have viewed it. Ouch! What the principles of some conservationists are costing the world’s poor.
Now onto dingoes, something more familiar.
They are a beautiful animal, and we wouldn’t mind having a few – if they would only behave themselves. Or we were compensated, at market rates, for the sheep and calves they would inevitably kill, or main and leave to die.
Otherwise, we just cannot afford someone else’s principles.
Jen,
Is a DVD scheduled for release on the Mine Your Own Business?
I see the usual lefty twits are hinting that anything which shows the evility of environmentalism as a film has to be automatically dismissed as propoganda and “unbalanced”.
The irony of it all is that mining has allowed us to, among other things, have the internet and PC’s on which they type their vile comments. Talk about defacting in one’s own nest.
Bring dingoes back to stop species extinction
——————————————–
It makes just as much sense to suggest that once the dingoes eat all the Bilby’s from one area and help cause their extinction, they move on to where they still have Bilby’s to eat. Hence the presence of Dingoes where Bilbies still exist.
Also where there has been extensive Dingo control there is obviously reasons for it. (ie. protection of livestock), which would suggest that livestock (and human activity) are also more prevalent in these areas where the Bilbies have gone.
I’m waiting for their controlled experiment of of increasing Dingo numbers on small populations of Bilbies and then picking up the pieces of results.
Pinxi,
I’ve seen you come back with something credible in rebuttal, and I’d like to see it now. Is there a test on the market that can determine what’s organic, or what’s not from cows treated with rBST?
Do it if you can.
Pinxi,
Instead of questioning Jennifer about the movie, you should perhaps be questioning the content of the movie. Do I detect the diversionary scent of the typical ad homimess attack?
Pinxi,
Instead of questioning Jennifer about the movie, you should perhaps be questioning the content of the movie. Do I detect the diversionary scent of the typical ad hominess attack?
Gabriel Resources totally fund the film Mine Your Own Business and Phelim and his wife Ann McElhinney come to the totally independant conclusion that its all a Greenie plot against mining companies around the globe and particularly in the case of Gabriel Resources altruisticly proposed mining development in Romania, a country well known for its high labour costs, environmental controls and stringent safety regulations?? ….. ahem….. I detect the pungent aroma of rodent and two doco shills.
Thurkettle wouldn’t recognise ‘legitimate science’ if it poked him in the eye with a sharp stick and told him the sensation he was experiencing was pain.
‘Scientists’ funded by Monsanto to produce a study of their growth hormone ‘Posilac’ reported that cows treated with the hormone suffered only a minor increase in udder infections. But when the results were re-examined by independent researchers, they found to their astonishment that only part of the data had been processed. A complete analysis revealed that the “somatic cell count” (that is pus, to you and me) increased by 20 per cent in the udders of cows treated with Posilac.’ – Unsafesicence.com refering to the study below…..
‘A recent estimate suggests that Monsanto and several other firms, including Eli Lilly, Upjohn and Cyanamid, have spent approximately 700 million dollars on the development of BST(3) These companies have been trying for more than 10 years to persuade governments and international regulatory agencies to approve the entry of their products onto the market. In November 1993, the US Food and Drug Administration gave its approval for the sale of Monsanto’s BST product (trade name Posilac), but in the European Union BST continues to be subject to a moratorium.
We have been investigating whether the administration of BST to lactating cows increases the number of somatic cells (leukocytes) in their milk. The somatic cell count (SCC) is an indicator of the level of inflammatory response of the udder; and elevated count is associated with an increased risk of mastitis.
In the spring of 1989, researchers at Monsanto published estimates(4,5) of average SCC levels for both treated and control groups from eight randomized controlled trials conducted in the late 1980s, but details were relatively sparse. They observed “a significant increase in somatic cells at 2 sites and in other trials there was no difference in somatic cells”(4). Significant differences were reported from studies in the United Kingdom and at Cornell(5).
In the summer of 1989, an undergraduate called Hugh Dawkes, at Chester College, submitted a finals project on BST for which E.M. was the external examiner. Dawkes had astutely realized that, although each of Monsanto’s eight studies might not, separately, be sufficiently powerful to detect the effect of BST, by pooling the data from all the studies it should be possible greatly to increase the sensitivity of a statistical analysis.
To pursue Dawkes’ idea, it was clear that a pooled analysis required supplementary information: at the very least, data on the size of the eight pairs of BST-treated and placebo groups, and the standard deviation of the SCC measurements for each of those groups. E.M. requested this information from Monsanto in August 1989, who promptly provided a table of figures. We then incorporated the new information into a paper submitted to the Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) at the Ministry of Agriculture fisheries and Food in September 1989(6). The committee was then considering the application for a commercial licence for BST, and we had concluded, from the available data, that there was evidence that the milk from cows treated with BST contains statistically significantly increased levels of somatic cells (or, more prosaically, pus).
E.M. then noticed that some of Monsanto’s published figures did not coincide with those provided directly to us. A Monsanto scientist, Dr Neil Craven (then manager of the company Animal Sciences Division), explained that, while it was the second set of figures that had been submitted to the UK government, neither set was correct, owing to mistakes in the arithmetic. Craven and Gerard de Kerchove (Monsanto’s senior European biometrician) visited E.M. on 4 October 1989, providing a revised, definitive set of figures and a disk containing the raw SCC data in a spreadsheet file. Two weeks later, Craven wrote to explain why 10 cows that had started the trial were omitted from their eventual analyses. He added:”. . . we request that the raw data be kept confidential. We hope that you will discuss any interpretation of the data with us before disclosing it to third parties”. We decided to carry out a detailed analysis of Monsanto’s data. The data provided to E.M. by Craven and de Kerchove were, for each of the 620 cows, the lactation number (age of the cow according to number of pregnancies), weekly SCCs, trial site and trial group (control or BST treatment). Missing values in the SCC data were more frequent towards the end of the cycles of lactation, and in the United Kingdom trial cell counts seemed to have been conducted on a monthly basis. We replicated what Monsanto had indicated were their authentic results, as well as our own previous analysis submitted to the VPC.’
– Erik Millstone, Eric Brunner and Ian White
Nature 371: 647-8 October 20, 1994
Erik Millstone is at the Science Policy Research Unit, Sussex University; Erik Brunner is at the Department of Epidemiology & Public Health, University College London and Ian White is at the Medical Statistics Unit, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
There is also scientific evidence that cows given growth hormone injections pass elevated hormone levels on in their milk and that this is linked to breast cancer and prostate cancer.
‘among pre-menopausal women increasing levels of IGF-1 in blood were strongly associated with increasing risk of breast cancer in a consistent dose-response relationship. Adjusting for other known breast cancer factors (age at which menstruation began; age at birth of first child; number of children; family history of breast cancer; and weight in relation to height) did not change the results’
– The Lancet (May 1998)
Science (January 1998) reported a four-fold increased risk of prostate cancer “a strong positive association” among 152 men who had elevated, but still “normal,” levels of IGF- 1. The study found that men, aged 60 and older, with high levels of IGF-1 (300-500 nanograms/milliliter) were eight times more likely to develop prostate cancer than men with the lowest levels (100-185 ng/ml).
According to the researchers, these results “raise concern” that an intake of rBGH or IGF-l, over time (and especially so for the elderly), “may increase the risk of prostate cancer.” Researchers suggested that IGF-1 levels in the blood might be a useful predictor of prostate cancer risk.
Schiller you started weaving the straw man, you give him legs. You must be keen to rebutt Lamna’s post with evidence.
Meanwhile would good science pursue an independent, transparent investigation of the health effects ahead of aggressive market expansion and drives for ROI?
On the movie Schiller, I ask why Jennifer is plugging it before I fork out for a ticket. She must think the content important. We know that she only supports impartial evidence-based approaches as she tells us this.
I think there simply a misunderstanding betweens the greens and mining industry.
Probably off to a bad start with Ok Tedi, Wittenoom, cyanide down the creek, rehabilitated tin mines, poor sand mine and coal mine revegetation, and no prosecutions under the mines act.
But that’s all behind us now.
We’ll balance those alleged mining sins with the 30 millions lives lost due to the banning of DDT fromm greenie pressure.
I would be impressed if the loonie lefties made their comments via handwritten parchments from sustainable sources using organic inks.
Using the PC and the internet is really pure hypocrisy.
Pinx
The film Mine Your Own Business features juxtopositions between NGO’s campaigning to stop mines, and claiming to speak for the locals – and locals speaking for themselves. The last place visited has an interesting take on desperately poor people driven to … er … wreck their environment to survive. You should see it, if only to be more credibly able to critique the contents.
Dingos are already being released into Queensland. I have had an albeit second hand report of two EPA officers releasing purebred dingoes in the sunshine coast hinterland. The only purebred dingos in recent decades have been those on Fraser Island but they are now being sighted all over southern Queensland and northern NSW.
Since the death of at least two tourists on Fraser I. there has been some talk of a cull but the evidence is mounting that the ParkNazis have taken it upon themselves to deliver a solution that the community has not been consulted on, let alone approved of.
And if one has ever seen a herd of cattle who have been “run” continuously in relays all night by Dingos until one of them drops then they could not possibly support this reintroduction.
These populations are now exploding since the gun law “reforms” restricted the activities of sporting shooters. Martin Bryant is in an institution where he should have been all the time yet far more killing, with far greater cruelty, is taking place in places that rarely saw such events.
I bet someone, somewhere, even feels proud of themselves.
I don’t know how it is in other countries but organic cows here can’t be treated with antibiotics, and that could be really bad… and this could of course be bad if you are concerned about animal welfare…
Methink , they should change rules regarding this often neccessary treatment with antibiotics( when they have bad injuries etc) when it comes to organic cows…
“‘balance the scales’ on political films”. Well, what about Al Gore’s “balanced” movie? ‘Mine Your Own Business’ is hardly grand enough to balance that..But oh what a wonderful start! Maybe we will yet see a Hollywood blockbuster based on Michael Creighton’s ‘State of Fear’! However I fear the political tide will need to turn a little further yet before we see that!
Jen,
The anti-small scale mining lobby is alive and well in Australia. Much of the damage done by these ‘lobbyists’ was done during Joan Kirners day. The following years of environmental hysteria and ‘the recession we had to have’, buried it.
The media, at this time, took a very one-sided approach to environmental issues. Facts were out and perceptions in. A bit like today really. Since then the bureaucrockic system put in place by Kirner, a mountain of paper work and fees now exists, surely designed to make it a complete hindrance to taking out a claim in the first place.
I have posted before, on the experience some of us small scale prospectors, who used portable eductor gold dredges (EGD) in the 1980’s and had our equipment banned, using pseudo science.
Eductor gold dredges (EGD) are a portable, one/two person operated gold recovery device that vacuums stream bed material through a hose, into a sluice box, where the gold is trapped and later recovered with a gold pan. The operator uses a hookah diving system and most rocks are moved by hand. The bulk of the material, after processing in the sluice box, falls straight back into the river behind the operator. Subsequent high water events, automatically re-sort/ classify this material into a natural, uniform profile.
Not only do EGD’s efficiently remove gold but heavy metals, such as metallic mercury and fishing sinkers.
The Prospectors and Miners Association of Victoria (PMAV), amongst others, lobbied hard to have this method of gold extraction recognized as a legitimate, on both a recreational and professional level, activity.
They were all but ignored. The environmental authorities went to all lengths to twist everything put forward to them on EGDing, into negative spin.
If there were any problems with EGDing it would probably have probably fallen within the social bracket, rather than an environmental one. There were areas along the Goulbourn River, for instance, where EGD operations sometimes clashed with campers, especially at holiday times, however, this was simply a matter of management. The trouble was the ‘authorities’ would not listen to EGD representatives, at all, ignoring a proposed ‘code of conduct’ put forward by the PMAV, which acknowledged isolated cases of ‘social conflict’ and the need to ameliorate these situations.
The PMAV’s solution was simple. Ban dredging in popular camping areas during holiday periods. Simple. But, as I said, authorities completely ignored this proposition.
What made things worse in this area, was when Joan Kirner came along. Under the guise of, ‘wanting to assess the social impact of EGDing’, Kirner forced all EGDing activity onto one section of river, banning EGDing for that season, in all other parts, including its tributaries and the most isolated and remote regions. The section of river she chose, was the most popular with campers and highly visible from the road. The outcome was obvious. Dozens of EGD operators, mainly recreationalists, descended on this section of river, causing over crowding and much conflict amongst other river users.
Kirner’s green bureaucrockic system, then began to infer that this was a ‘typical’ EDG scenario.
While this was a ‘forced social conflict’, there were people like myself, who preferred and worked in remote country, by breaking down our equipment and carrying it to a location piece by piece, never coming across anybody. Complete isolation surrounded by wildness.
A representative from the PMAV managed to get some ‘lobbying’ time from, the then Minister David White. White simply carried on with his daily work, completely ignoring our representative’s presence. After 15 minutes, White stood up and showed him the door, with absolutely no dialogue exchange. He had his head down during the whole ‘interview’, doing other work.
Kirner was to later call this episode ‘community consultation’.
Kirner called for a Parlimentary Inquiry into the environmental effects of EGD. With the resources of DSE, Parks Victoria, EPA, etc. nothing was found of long term consequence.
But things, as follows, were typical of the ‘scientific’ approach by the DSE during this ‘inquiry’.
On one occasion ‘scientists’ from DSE, worked in conjunction with an EGD operator, to determine the effect on macro invertabrae populations, that were taken, along with the sediment, up the EGD’s suction hose. The ‘scientists’ took samples of sediment from the back of a EGD, which they then placed in an esky. This esky was then left on the bank of the river, in the hot sun, while the ‘scientists’ had a ‘friendly’ chat with the operator, before returning to the lab, to test for macro invertabrae mortality rates.
A finding of 100% mortality rate was produced.
It took an appreciable amount of time, before the departments would acknowledge (admit), that this sample was unacceptable, as the esky sample had been cooked. In fact the department initially, for some time ignored the cries of foul play from the PMAV. Letters sent to the department were ignored.
Meanwhile, statistical data from this bad sample was slipped into various unpublished reports, etc.
A new (proper) sample was later taken. Result. 90+% survival rate. If members of the PMAV had not woken up to the ‘anomaly’ with the first sample, then a finding of 100% mortality would have been seen as fact.
The inquiry was to show the lengths that these departments would go to, bending scientific arguments into a position that suited ‘their’ position. The spin was incredible, commonplace and well, pathetic.
I am sure if some of the reporting, that was dressed up as science, was put forward today for peer review, the reviewers, after having read the report would not even hand it back. They would put it straight in the bin. Or file it under Pluto.
The inquiry never found evidence of long term damage, so, even though the EGD had been in use for 13+ years, with most EGD sites older than 2 years having completely disappeared, melting back into the environment, the Precautionary Principle was used to cause a cessation to EGD licences, which in itself was another scandal.
Earlier, we were sure we the EGDers were going to ‘win’ the case, as after 2-3 years of investigation and inquiry, it was becoming plain obvious to all, that EGDing had no detrimental effects on the river environs. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Out of 8 committee members, it seemed that the 4 ALP would vote ‘no’ and the 4 Libs would vote ‘yes’. The chairman, would have the deciding vote and seeming a commonsense sort of person, he was going ‘yes’. But then low and behold, guess what?
One of the Lib members of the committee was threatened by the EPA to prosecute him over perceived pollution issues from a puppy breeding farm that he owned. He crossed the floor. Voted ‘no’. He was subsequently never prosecuted for puppy pollution.
There is no sign today of any past EGDing activities throughout Australia. Natural flooding has taken care of that.
What this inquiry revealed, to us, at the pointy end of the stick, was an obvious network of deceit and propaganda, that runs deep within this department. And they shouldn’t have done it because, you see, the way they did it was actually quite amateurish. It’s just a matter of time, when the tables will turn and the fact, that they foolishly published some of the crap that they did, will come around to bite them. It was that bad.
Further, they did not realize that some of us were to stumble upon parts of the ‘inner network’ and how it operates, which means that when people are ready to listen, who have the time, some out here will reveal an example of why, our environmental management, has turned out to be the catastrophe that it is. Including some of the ‘oh so innocent’ players ‘saving’ our environment.
As an aside, it was interesting to note that in some of the worst hit areas following the 2003 fires, where most of the vegetation, including blackberries was burnt off, the historical alluvial diggings along the mountain streams such as Lightning creek were in exactly the same state when left 130 years ago. Wheelbarrow marks were there and rocks, the very last rocks, picked up and put down by the claim holder were sitting there, as if they had merely gone to lunch and had not got around to putting that rock onto the tailings stack.
I point this out because often people associate all alluvial mining with erosion, sediment dispersal, bank collapse, etc. This showed however, the inherent stability in these rocky stratums, even after massive disturbance such as the gold rush and feral wildfires.
Alluvial mining is all about management and acknowledging environmental realities. I would like to see if the pseudo science used against small scale mining in those poor countries is of the same ‘quality’ used here in Australia. I reckon I could put an argument or two up now, based on researched fact and personal experience.
Oh, and Luke, matey boy, with OK Tedi, I am wondering if you know anything about that tailings dam that burst, sending all that crap down the valley, silting the lower/middle reaches.
My father was an engineer on that job and he tells me that the actual location the mining company wanted to put that dam was in a completely different place. The government insisted it went where it ended up. The mining company told them it was a geologically unsound location. No one listened. The company was ignored.
Stewie – Ok Tedi – that’s the most apologetic exscuse I’ve ever heard. The poor poor company. The govt had a stake in the mine. And the company has admitted the operation to be an environmental disaster.
What is it about Australian companies and tailings dams. We have the cyanide poisoning of the Tisza and Danube in 2000.
Then there’s South America and cyanide.
As for State of Fear – excellent fictional comedy.
Yet the mining company went ahead anyway stewie, with full knowledge it was a geologically unsound location. Go figure.
Helen there are extremists in every camp. Go figure.
Calm down Luke or you might soil your skirt.
I asked if you knew anything about the siting of the tailings dam and the geological integrity of that site?
I take it the answer is no.
I thought you would know well, that what the public hear and what actually goes on behind the scenes, can be two totally different realities.
“State of Fear-fictional comedy” – WT flying F.
Pinxi, if you read my question to Luke as looking for an excuse for a mining company, you’d be all of wrong. I like facts. Having lived in Bouganville for a while in the 70’s, I witnessed a couple of unacceptable environmental situations. However, I also don’t think this should be an excuse to ban it if an alternative to that situation is possible. Alternatives will only come about with facts.
In Bouganville the human rights groups ended up convincing certain locals to destroy the mine in Panguna and go for independence.
And where has that got them. It’s ultimately put machine guns in their hands.
Now, if you had lived there previous to that (like I had) and realized how much the highland natives hated the lowland natives, the last thing you would want is to replace either parties spears with machine guns. It makes one river with dirty, filthy tailings running down it look inconsequential.
Just back from the laundry washing my skirt and Phil’s undies.
Stew my good man, I know the area was earthquake prone and the dam collapsed. You obviously have more information which you will beat me about the head and shoulders with.
Stew – I’m not anti-mining, anti-minerals. I enjoy their benefits. You’ll find me looking at mineral specimens and mining tehnology in museums (but not if Louis is there).
However environmental impact is unacceptable IMHO and mining companies know they need to do better and be reminded of their obligations especially in 3rd world situations. My prodigious super is in their shares so I have a right to an opinion.
State of Fear was for Sid. WTF Sid.
And in that film it is not the humble, hopeful locals who come across as the extremists.
Or are you referring to me? Like stewie, I have been taught the profound difference between the principles of conservation and the principles of some conservationists. Like stewie, that lesson was delivered by public servants both abusing powers and truth-bending. People in paid positions of public trust.
If trying to hang onto my own conservation principles, while disgusted with the principles of some conservationists makes me an extremist – then I am content to be so.
Or should I throw the baby out with the smelly bathwater, Luke?
I am bloody determined to get rid of some of that bathwater, Luke. But like stewie, I am prepared to bide my time. The tide will eventually turn.
Tide will turn? Jeez I reckon it’s still out. But Helen we are arguing here and not on Tim Blair or Treehugger as we hopefully think there is another way and a way back.
BTW I wouldn’t give Gore’s movie full marks either. But SofF doesn’t get even a pass.
Beware the anger of patient men and women!
Luke,
arn’t we the preacher man then!
Stewie:”I am now most interested in the gay/green connection. And no I am not homophobic and yes realize a lot of human rights /environmental campaigns are worthy.”
Hi Stewie,
Don’t know if there is any real connection. From my own experience from Greenpeace I know that lots of young activists support the gay movement, but high profile Greenpeace activist Tomakint from Nigeria calls gays “animals” and something like ” the scum of the world”.
Well, personally I don’t care about this issue…
Jen,
I see you removed my post concerning extreme gay lobby groups and blood borne disease responsibilities.
Fair enough. Hope I didn’t upset you with it.
I will shortly put another post on the ‘Burke’s Backyard Infested with Native Invasive Scrub: Media Release from Community Group’ article, regarding promised fuel reduction video.
“And in that film it is not the humble, hopeful locals who come across as the extremists…” Now we’re back at square 1. Phew, no-one claims this movie gives a balanced view of general activists, enviromentalists, miners or locals in 3rd world situations. (Ditto M Moore movies & Gore’s intro to GW 101 movie)
General entertainment with a lesson for everyone: see Manderley by lars von Trier.
I’m still having an involuntary and unwelcome PoMo spasm over the judicious application of ‘facts’ alongside generalisations. What specifications, the funnel? Just try yr honest best to admit your own personal biases, cultural influences and limited data inputs that shape your ‘facts’. Oh for fact’s sake! If Davey or Boxer is reading, one of them might have something to say.
I have wondered why the global warming debate has heated up recently, what is driving this debate, demands for action and for governments to spend vast amounts of tax payers dollars to slow or stop the climate change. (example IMF criticising Australia at the G20)
Perhaps this Reuters News Alert last Tuesday from the Global Warming conference in Nairobi might give some clues
“Delegates at a U.N.-backed climate change conference have deferred a deal to allow new refrigerant plants in China and India to get lucrative funding under the Kyoto global warming pact, a U.N. official said.
Existing refrigerant plants produce as a by-product the super greenhouse gas HFC 23, but under Kyoto carbon trading rules factory owners can sell lucrative carbon credits by destroying this gas.
Kyoto sets rich countries limits on emissions of greenhouse gases, but allows them to meet these targets by funding cuts in developing countries, spawning a carbon trade worth $5 billion in the last 20 months.
The destruction of HFC 23 has been by far the most lucrative of such trades.
For example, the World Bank pocketed some 25 million euros ($32 million) in management fees alone this summer for arranging two landmark HFC 23 deals in China, where factories pledged to destroy some 130 million tonnes of greenhouse gases in an 800 million euro deal.
The sticking point on a deal for new plants was that these factories also produce HCFC 22, a gas which damages the earth’s ozone layer, something which a separate pact, the Montreal Protocol, is meant to stop. “
As a contributor to this blog recently said “Money Talks” and a $5 billion trading industry can sure provide a lot of talk!
Cinders is this increasing the total amount of ozone depleting substances being emitted? Seems like business as normal except a slight shuffle in the sources of funding
India, probably China as well, have allegedly continued to output lots of ozone depleting substances despite Montreal Protocl. Apparently(?) some 1st world nations were exporting that problem. And everyone here says we can’t restrict GHGs until China etc do too.
It’s no secret that inconsistencies among the various international instruments and regulations are a problem. But these inconsistencies are politically expedient for some. The proposed solution would make you gulp: one international environmental organisation with proper authority, like we have for world trade & human rights.
If there’s an objection to markets addressing climate actions, what is it? markets, or using market forces to address environmental matters, or Kyoto, or AGW science, or change in general?
As proxy, businesses use markets to fund desired global changes. As well as saying money talks, I’ve also said that China is way ahead of Aust on making structural changes to its energy sector and GHG emissions. The rapidly industrialising economies are becoming more advanced than many of the ‘1st world’ economies.
Kyoto is doing what the mechanism is supposed to: efficient allocation towards a goal to reduce emissions of globally mixed GHGs, to incentivise structural change towards that end.