Kathy Blanchard in the US Naturist Society's magazine advocates that we go naked to save the planet. You think I'm joking, don't you.
Here's her words: Thinking green is not a fad. It's an imperative. ...As naturists, we have an added tie to going green. ...Go nude. That may seem obvious, but how many naturists or nudists actually spend much time naked? Living more hours naked each day results in a dramatic drop in my laundry, which in turn reduces my water and energy use (along with my related bills). It also reduces the amount of soap I release.
No Comment
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Hail the hero, Godwin Grech
In an "Australian" editorial entitled Whistleblowers play essential role June 25, 2009. "IT will come as little surprise to learn that The Australian is in favour of public service leaks. The more the better. Whistleblowing serves the public interest, increasing transparency, enforcing accountability and protecting democracy."
This man, who thought he was doing a patriotic duty exposing what he thought was government corruption, should be held on shoulders and marched around like a hero. Instead he has been used as a Labor Party whipping boy, has been ridiculed, has been silenced by Labor Senator Bullies, Bullied by his superior in the senate enquiry and has had his health harmed.
Shame, Labor Senators, Shame.
Shame Kevin Rudd, shame.
And to be perfectly even-handed, shame Malcolm Turnbull for creeping round the questions instead of championing the little guy whistleblower.
Incidentally, isn't the Labor party against bullying, or does that only occur when it isn;t themselves.
This man, who thought he was doing a patriotic duty exposing what he thought was government corruption, should be held on shoulders and marched around like a hero. Instead he has been used as a Labor Party whipping boy, has been ridiculed, has been silenced by Labor Senator Bullies, Bullied by his superior in the senate enquiry and has had his health harmed.
Shame, Labor Senators, Shame.
Shame Kevin Rudd, shame.
And to be perfectly even-handed, shame Malcolm Turnbull for creeping round the questions instead of championing the little guy whistleblower.
Incidentally, isn't the Labor party against bullying, or does that only occur when it isn;t themselves.
Reply to Professor Adams
Professor Adams, being sceptical of scptics, has said In his view, it can be stated with confidence that climate change is happening...
Well, yes Peter. Climate change is happening, it was ever thus.
Prof. Adams noted that some of the skeptics have seemingly impressive credentials, but illustrated how nefarious their tactics can be by using a powerful analogy involving the statue of Venus de Milo:
"The scientist would say that the Venus de Milo is a statue of a woman, whereas the skeptic would say 'A woman has arms, and this statue has no arms; therefore, it's not certain that this is a statue of a woman, and it can't be proven as such until the arms are found.'"
OK, take the statue as a symbol of global warming. A woman has warmth, and this statue has no warmth; therefore, it's not certain that this is a statue of a global warming, and it can't be proven as such until the warmth is found.'"
Get rid of this stupid, deceptive title of Climate change and get back to the original global warming or is it that the warming scientists are against both warming and cooling.
Well, yes Peter. Climate change is happening, it was ever thus.
Prof. Adams noted that some of the skeptics have seemingly impressive credentials, but illustrated how nefarious their tactics can be by using a powerful analogy involving the statue of Venus de Milo:
"The scientist would say that the Venus de Milo is a statue of a woman, whereas the skeptic would say 'A woman has arms, and this statue has no arms; therefore, it's not certain that this is a statue of a woman, and it can't be proven as such until the arms are found.'"
OK, take the statue as a symbol of global warming. A woman has warmth, and this statue has no warmth; therefore, it's not certain that this is a statue of a global warming, and it can't be proven as such until the warmth is found.'"
Get rid of this stupid, deceptive title of Climate change and get back to the original global warming or is it that the warming scientists are against both warming and cooling.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
An Open Letter to All Members of Parliament
An Open Letter to All Members of Parliament
From the Carbon Sense Coalition
Soon our elected representatives will be asked to vote on Senator Wong’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
This scheme is not about carbon or pollution. It main effect is to provide for a cap on the human production of carbon dioxide, a colourless harmless natural gas. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than oxygen or water, the other two atmospheric gases on which all life on earth relies.
The bill will also levy a tax on whatever carbon dioxide is produced, and levy an excess production tax on anyone whose production exceeds the legal cap. It is a carbon dioxide Cap-n-Tax Bill.
There is no human activity whatsoever that does not generate carbon dioxide. Therefore any attempt to measure, cap and tax human production of carbon dioxide must eventually extend to every human activity (the UK government already floated the idea that every person be issued with a personal carbon ration card).
This is a very serious proposal, with wide-ranging implications for all aspects of economic life and personal freedoms. It could only be justified if there was a clear and urgent danger that additional human production of carbon dioxide is highly likely to cause dangerous global warming. There is no evidence that this is the case.
Neither the scientific questions, nor the cost benefit analysis has been subject to any critical independent analysis.
The diagram below illustrates the sequence of decisions that should be made before this bill gets assent. If the answer to ANY ONE of the boxed questions is “NO”, there is no justification for Australia rushing ahead with its Cap-n-Tax Bill.
This diagram, although light-hearted, has a factual basis and conveys some very serious messages.
It is highly unlikely that anyone could honestly answer “Yes” to every question, which is what is required to justify passage of the bill. This shows that there is a high likelihood that the bill will have NO CLIMATE EFFECT WHATSOEVER and thus a costly exercise in self delusion.
Our strong recommendation is that the Parliament rejects this bill entirely.
From the Carbon Sense Coalition
Soon our elected representatives will be asked to vote on Senator Wong’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
This scheme is not about carbon or pollution. It main effect is to provide for a cap on the human production of carbon dioxide, a colourless harmless natural gas. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than oxygen or water, the other two atmospheric gases on which all life on earth relies.
The bill will also levy a tax on whatever carbon dioxide is produced, and levy an excess production tax on anyone whose production exceeds the legal cap. It is a carbon dioxide Cap-n-Tax Bill.
There is no human activity whatsoever that does not generate carbon dioxide. Therefore any attempt to measure, cap and tax human production of carbon dioxide must eventually extend to every human activity (the UK government already floated the idea that every person be issued with a personal carbon ration card).
This is a very serious proposal, with wide-ranging implications for all aspects of economic life and personal freedoms. It could only be justified if there was a clear and urgent danger that additional human production of carbon dioxide is highly likely to cause dangerous global warming. There is no evidence that this is the case.
Neither the scientific questions, nor the cost benefit analysis has been subject to any critical independent analysis.
The diagram below illustrates the sequence of decisions that should be made before this bill gets assent. If the answer to ANY ONE of the boxed questions is “NO”, there is no justification for Australia rushing ahead with its Cap-n-Tax Bill.
This diagram, although light-hearted, has a factual basis and conveys some very serious messages.
It is highly unlikely that anyone could honestly answer “Yes” to every question, which is what is required to justify passage of the bill. This shows that there is a high likelihood that the bill will have NO CLIMATE EFFECT WHATSOEVER and thus a costly exercise in self delusion.
Our strong recommendation is that the Parliament rejects this bill entirely.
Friday, June 19, 2009
PETA - Please Eliminate These Activists
From Associated Press:
Washington (AP) - The group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals wants the flyswatter in chief to try taking a more humane attitude the next time he's bedeviled by a fly in the White House.
PETA is sending President Barack Obama a Katcha Bug Humane Bug Catcher, a device that allows users to trap a house fly and then release it outside.
We know that PETA uses similar tactics on animals that they "rescue" from animal shelters. They gently rescue them from shelters and release them outside; they release them from life and then dump them outside fast food restaurants!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/23/EDG11DC9BK1.DTL
"DON'T BE FOOLED by the slick propaganda of PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The organization may claim to champion the welfare of animals, as the many photos of cute puppies and kittens on its Web site suggest. But last week, two PETA employees were charged with 31 felony counts of animal cruelty each, after authorities found them dumping the dead bodies of 18 animals they had just picked up from a North Carolina animal shelter into a Dumpster. According to the Associated Press, 13 more dead animals were found in a van registered to PETA."
and -
This is not the first report that PETA killed animals it claimed to protect. In 1991, PETA killed 18 rabbits and 14 roosters it had previously "rescued" from a research facility. "We just don't have the money" to care for them, then PETA-Chairman Alex Pacheco told the Washington Times. The PETA animal shelter had run out of room.
The Center for Consumer Freedom, which represents the food industry, a frequent target of PETA campaigns, released data filed by PETA with the state of Virginia that shows PETA has killed more than 10,000 animals from 1998 to 2003.
and PETA TOP DOG Ingrid Newkirk
"Besides, PETA always has been about killing animals. A 2003 New Yorker profile included PETA top dog Ingrid Newkirk's story of how she became involved in animal rights after a shelter put down stray kittens she brought there. So she went to work for an animal shelter in the 1970s, where, she explained, "I would go to work early, before anyone got there, and I would just kill the animals myself. Because I couldn't stand to let them go through (other workers abusing the animals.) I must have killed a thousand of them, sometimes dozens every day."
Washington (AP) - The group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals wants the flyswatter in chief to try taking a more humane attitude the next time he's bedeviled by a fly in the White House.
PETA is sending President Barack Obama a Katcha Bug Humane Bug Catcher, a device that allows users to trap a house fly and then release it outside.
We know that PETA uses similar tactics on animals that they "rescue" from animal shelters. They gently rescue them from shelters and release them outside; they release them from life and then dump them outside fast food restaurants!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/23/EDG11DC9BK1.DTL
"DON'T BE FOOLED by the slick propaganda of PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The organization may claim to champion the welfare of animals, as the many photos of cute puppies and kittens on its Web site suggest. But last week, two PETA employees were charged with 31 felony counts of animal cruelty each, after authorities found them dumping the dead bodies of 18 animals they had just picked up from a North Carolina animal shelter into a Dumpster. According to the Associated Press, 13 more dead animals were found in a van registered to PETA."
and -
This is not the first report that PETA killed animals it claimed to protect. In 1991, PETA killed 18 rabbits and 14 roosters it had previously "rescued" from a research facility. "We just don't have the money" to care for them, then PETA-Chairman Alex Pacheco told the Washington Times. The PETA animal shelter had run out of room.
The Center for Consumer Freedom, which represents the food industry, a frequent target of PETA campaigns, released data filed by PETA with the state of Virginia that shows PETA has killed more than 10,000 animals from 1998 to 2003.
and PETA TOP DOG Ingrid Newkirk
"Besides, PETA always has been about killing animals. A 2003 New Yorker profile included PETA top dog Ingrid Newkirk's story of how she became involved in animal rights after a shelter put down stray kittens she brought there. So she went to work for an animal shelter in the 1970s, where, she explained, "I would go to work early, before anyone got there, and I would just kill the animals myself. Because I couldn't stand to let them go through (other workers abusing the animals.) I must have killed a thousand of them, sometimes dozens every day."
Monday, June 15, 2009
We smell a RAT, Mr Rudd
“Carbon Sense”
June 2009
The RAT Scheme.
“The RAT Scheme will destroy jobs, jobs, jobs.”
A statement/letter by Mr Viv Forbes, Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition.
13 June 2009
Any politician interested in preserving Australian jobs must vote against “The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme”. It will not change the climate, it will do nothing useful for the planet and it will destroy real jobs faster than green jobs can be created.
This deceptively misnamed bill is not about “carbon” nor about “pollution reduction” – it is designed to Ration and Tax human production of carbon dioxide (CO2). It is correctly named “the Carbon Dioxide Ration and Tax Scheme” or “the RAT Scheme” for short.
There is no human activity or business that produces zero carbon dioxide – every activity (even sleeping on the job) produces CO2, either directly or indirectly. And for Australia’s chief industries, there is no feasible alternative on the horizon. Electricity generation, transport and tourism, agriculture and food processing, mining and mineral processing, infrastructure and construction, forestry and fishing, metals and cement, electronics and appliances – all depend for most of their energy on hydro-carbons – coal, oil and gas.
Even with a crash-through program of investment in alternative energy, the base load power will still be required, with boilers charged and staff on standby to cope with the many times when there is neither sun nor wind energy available. Given time and the political will, nuclear power could take up base-load power generation (at higher costs). But that looks unlikely to occur any time soon.
The first thing the RAT Scheme will do is establish a “cap” - a ration or limit on the production of CO2. (The exact level of the cap, and the base reference year will apparently be set using a roulette wheel in Penny Wong’s office.)
A Carbon Energy Ration Card from an Earlier Era.
The whole purpose of the cap is to force Australia’s backbone industries to reduce production of CO2 (unless of course they are exempted, but that would make the whole exercise even more pointless and unfair than it is now). There are no real alternatives available in many applications (solar aircraft? wind powered trucks? geothermal fishing trawlers?) Thus the cap must thus reduce production.
This throttling of our key industries by way of Emission ration permits will cause the first round of job layoffs.
Then comes the tax whammy.
Most industries will have to pay for their cap entitlement – ie they have to pay to do what they have previously been doing for free. Even after they have paid for production up to their rationed entitlement, any business which wishes to return to its pre-Rat scheme production levels (above the cap), must buy new ration permits in a speculative Emissions Permit market. This is another tax which has to be recovered from customers, other businesses or shareholders.
The first law of fiscal policy is this: “If you tax something, less of it will be produced.” This is the real aim of the RAT Scheme and it will achieve that aim.
There are always marginal businesses in all industries. An increase in taxes will cause a few of them to close their doors or move to a more enlightened country. And there are always nervous bankers ready to pull the plug because of the extra risk in the speculative carbon trading market.
In the green new world there is also no room for new projects or new jobs in traditional industries – any new project will need to force closure of an old project by buying its Ration permits on the market.
These new and uncertain taxes on existing production will cause the second round of job losses.
Even those businesses that survive the production cap, the ration fee and the excess carbon tax, will be forced to increase their prices to recoup the extra costs. This makes them less able to compete with imports in the Australian market, or with other exporters in the world market. Countries such as India, China, Brazil and South Africa, who have no intention of embracing the shackles of a RAT Scheme, will be the chief beneficiaries. Overseas is where the real new jobs will be created.
This unfair competition from foreign firms will cause the third round of jobs layoffs.
To date we have only looked at things from the perspective of existing industry.
There is also a whole gamut of global warming policies that will directly or indirectly subsidize regulators, inspectors, auditors, lawyers, bankers, carbon traders, international conferences, and the manufacture and operation of subsidised facilities such as wind farms, solar arrays, carbon forests and facilities granted exemptions from the costs everyone else must bear.
The second law of fiscal policy is this: “If you subsidise something, you will get more of it”.
We will thus get more of these costly subsidised things – the Climate Change Industry looks like becoming the biggest industry in the world. It will compete with real industry for materials, labour and rationed energy, but will not put cheaper food on our plate, cheaper or more reliable electricity into the grid or make a net contribution to tax revenue.
The growing costs of the Climate Change Industry must filter back to the real economy, causing more job layoffs.
Three places in the world have already tested the Green Job Creation Myth – Spain and Denmark with massive wind and solar power developments and California which tries to lead the world in everything green.
All three have seen loss of jobs as industries close or relocate because of costly or unreliable electricity supply. A recent study in Spain has concluded that more than 2 real jobs were destroyed for every green job created. In addition Spain has 17% unemployment, electricity shortages, and power costs up by from 30% (homes) to 100% (businesses). Denmark is selling unreliable wind power at a loss, and California’s climate madness has caused a huge loss of jobs and tax revenue.
Surely Australia can learn from the mistakes of others and refuse to pass this dangerous legislation.
For more information on Green Job destruction in Spain see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzFlO6Bk-C0&feature=player_embedded
Viv Forbes Chairman
The Carbon Sense Coalition
MS 23 Rosewood Qld Australia 4340
0754 640 533 info@carbon-sense.com
June 2009
The RAT Scheme.
“The RAT Scheme will destroy jobs, jobs, jobs.”
A statement/letter by Mr Viv Forbes, Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition.
13 June 2009
Any politician interested in preserving Australian jobs must vote against “The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme”. It will not change the climate, it will do nothing useful for the planet and it will destroy real jobs faster than green jobs can be created.
This deceptively misnamed bill is not about “carbon” nor about “pollution reduction” – it is designed to Ration and Tax human production of carbon dioxide (CO2). It is correctly named “the Carbon Dioxide Ration and Tax Scheme” or “the RAT Scheme” for short.
There is no human activity or business that produces zero carbon dioxide – every activity (even sleeping on the job) produces CO2, either directly or indirectly. And for Australia’s chief industries, there is no feasible alternative on the horizon. Electricity generation, transport and tourism, agriculture and food processing, mining and mineral processing, infrastructure and construction, forestry and fishing, metals and cement, electronics and appliances – all depend for most of their energy on hydro-carbons – coal, oil and gas.
Even with a crash-through program of investment in alternative energy, the base load power will still be required, with boilers charged and staff on standby to cope with the many times when there is neither sun nor wind energy available. Given time and the political will, nuclear power could take up base-load power generation (at higher costs). But that looks unlikely to occur any time soon.
The first thing the RAT Scheme will do is establish a “cap” - a ration or limit on the production of CO2. (The exact level of the cap, and the base reference year will apparently be set using a roulette wheel in Penny Wong’s office.)
A Carbon Energy Ration Card from an Earlier Era.
The whole purpose of the cap is to force Australia’s backbone industries to reduce production of CO2 (unless of course they are exempted, but that would make the whole exercise even more pointless and unfair than it is now). There are no real alternatives available in many applications (solar aircraft? wind powered trucks? geothermal fishing trawlers?) Thus the cap must thus reduce production.
This throttling of our key industries by way of Emission ration permits will cause the first round of job layoffs.
Then comes the tax whammy.
Most industries will have to pay for their cap entitlement – ie they have to pay to do what they have previously been doing for free. Even after they have paid for production up to their rationed entitlement, any business which wishes to return to its pre-Rat scheme production levels (above the cap), must buy new ration permits in a speculative Emissions Permit market. This is another tax which has to be recovered from customers, other businesses or shareholders.
The first law of fiscal policy is this: “If you tax something, less of it will be produced.” This is the real aim of the RAT Scheme and it will achieve that aim.
There are always marginal businesses in all industries. An increase in taxes will cause a few of them to close their doors or move to a more enlightened country. And there are always nervous bankers ready to pull the plug because of the extra risk in the speculative carbon trading market.
In the green new world there is also no room for new projects or new jobs in traditional industries – any new project will need to force closure of an old project by buying its Ration permits on the market.
These new and uncertain taxes on existing production will cause the second round of job losses.
Even those businesses that survive the production cap, the ration fee and the excess carbon tax, will be forced to increase their prices to recoup the extra costs. This makes them less able to compete with imports in the Australian market, or with other exporters in the world market. Countries such as India, China, Brazil and South Africa, who have no intention of embracing the shackles of a RAT Scheme, will be the chief beneficiaries. Overseas is where the real new jobs will be created.
This unfair competition from foreign firms will cause the third round of jobs layoffs.
To date we have only looked at things from the perspective of existing industry.
There is also a whole gamut of global warming policies that will directly or indirectly subsidize regulators, inspectors, auditors, lawyers, bankers, carbon traders, international conferences, and the manufacture and operation of subsidised facilities such as wind farms, solar arrays, carbon forests and facilities granted exemptions from the costs everyone else must bear.
The second law of fiscal policy is this: “If you subsidise something, you will get more of it”.
We will thus get more of these costly subsidised things – the Climate Change Industry looks like becoming the biggest industry in the world. It will compete with real industry for materials, labour and rationed energy, but will not put cheaper food on our plate, cheaper or more reliable electricity into the grid or make a net contribution to tax revenue.
The growing costs of the Climate Change Industry must filter back to the real economy, causing more job layoffs.
Three places in the world have already tested the Green Job Creation Myth – Spain and Denmark with massive wind and solar power developments and California which tries to lead the world in everything green.
All three have seen loss of jobs as industries close or relocate because of costly or unreliable electricity supply. A recent study in Spain has concluded that more than 2 real jobs were destroyed for every green job created. In addition Spain has 17% unemployment, electricity shortages, and power costs up by from 30% (homes) to 100% (businesses). Denmark is selling unreliable wind power at a loss, and California’s climate madness has caused a huge loss of jobs and tax revenue.
Surely Australia can learn from the mistakes of others and refuse to pass this dangerous legislation.
For more information on Green Job destruction in Spain see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzFlO6Bk-C0&feature=player_embedded
Viv Forbes Chairman
The Carbon Sense Coalition
MS 23 Rosewood Qld Australia 4340
0754 640 533 info@carbon-sense.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)