Archive for July, 2011

Could the Carbon debate have been created by 1950’s Hemp prohabition

July 20, 2011

Is our environmental and financial savior Hemp?

 

For thousands of years up until the 1950’s Hemp was one of the most important plants on the planet, easy to grow, using little water, leaving the soil ready for the next crop and has many industrial and medical uses, along with many uses that benefit the current environmental debate.

 

Medicines, textiles, paper, bio fuels, biodegradable plastics and food stock, and yet open debate appears of the agenda, with the whole “Clean and Green” in the lime light an educated parliament would be investigating what is best for the people and the environment rather than sweeping educated debate under the rug.

 

With big industry having such a huge say in our society at a political level, it is no wonder hemp is of the agenda, as the benefits of a hemp industry would be far spread and accessible for many different industries and primary producers.

 

In South Australia there has been much debate on the growing of cotton using dwindling river water resources, alternate crop alternatives, and general land productivity, let alone huge money for alternate green projects, yet hemp is not even debated as any alternative.

 

Henry Ford had the answers many years ago, when one of his first cars was not only made from hemp fiber, but also run on hemp oil, Rudolph Diesel himself designed the diesel engine to run on hemp oil, something I do not remember learning in school, so how long has the truth been off the agenda?

 

“Why use the forests which were centuries in the making and the mines which required ages to lay down, if we can get the equivalent of forest and mineral products in the annual growth of the fields?” Henry Ford 

 

Henry ford was speaking of ethanol and bio diesel, both Ford and Diesel opposed big oil, and rightfully so, and so should any who look forward to a renewable future. One must wonder how years of recent debate on the climate and Co2 has never given rise to public debate on hemp, not just because of its clean applications, but its known ability as one of the best carbon sinks.

 

“Imagine if the politicians of the day, had backed Ford and Diesel, what would be powering our energy needs today, how many old growth forests would still stand, and would good old Co2 been enduing attacks on its good name as plant food?”

 

Construction products such as medium density fiberboard, oriented strand board, and even beams, studs and posts can be made out of hemp. Because of hemp’s long fibers, the products will be stronger and/or lighter than those made from wood.

 

With deforestation such an important issue, and such a high price being allotted to forests for their stored Co2, via carbon trading initiatives, how could the use of hemp as both a carbon sink and an alternate textile be over looked?

 

Even today BMW is experimenting with hemp materials in automobiles as part of an effort to make cars more recyclable, it is hard to believe that over 25,000 materials used today could be made from hemp, but only silence at the request of ingrained multinational greed.

 

A quick google of the word, finds thousands of educated articles, from vehicles driving thousands of klms on hemp bio fuels, many medical break through’s including cancer cures, increased demand for hemp from the paper, recycle industries and our struggling primary producers.

 

While the Ideal plant is overlooked, the present diversions of important food drops to appease clean fuel production, is nothing but genocide in a starving world.

 

I find it hard to believe any government would allow synthetic cures to replace the natural products when the natural medicines have less if any side affects, even worse there has never been a hemp/marijuana related death, yet the government bans hemp, while endorsing tobacco and alcohol products?

 

I need not continue to list all the benefits or even to address the recreational use which seems to dominate debate in this country, what we should all demand is open and honest dialogue on the many possible uses of hemp in our society, with out the usual biases left over from the prohibition of the 1950’s.

 

It is also not amusing that those who opposed hemp and worked towards its demise as a household product are the very same players that benefited from its demise, and if we look at the beneficiaries of carbon trading, the same names appear.

 

Hemp has been an important part of human society for thousands of years, and has always been a very beneficial crop and remains that way today; the only self-interest we should allow as a society, is that of what is best for the people, by representatives that remember that fact.

 

 

Mark M Aldridge

Independent Candidate and Proud supporter of the “Australian Alliance”

www.markmaldridge.com

aldridgemark@bigpond.com

08 82847482 / 0403379500

Advertisements

Could “Hemp” be our savoir?

July 20, 2011

Is our environmental and financial savior Hemp?

 

For thousands of years up until the 1950’s Hemp was one of the most important plants on the planet, easy to grow, using little water, leaving the soil ready for the next crop and has many industrial and medical uses, along with many uses that benefit the current environmental debate.

 

Medicines, textiles, paper, bio fuels, biodegradable plastics and food stock, and yet open debate appears of the agenda, with the whole “Clean and Green” in the lime light an educated parliament would be investigating what is best for the people and the environment rather than sweeping educated debate under the rug.

 

With big industry having such a huge say in our society at a political level, it is no wonder hemp is of the agenda, as the benefits of a hemp industry would be far spread and accessible for many different industries and primary producers.

 

In South Australia there has been much debate on the growing of cotton using dwindling river water resources, alternate crop alternatives, and general land productivity, let alone huge money for alternate green projects, yet hemp is not even debated as any alternative.

 

Henry Ford had the answers many years ago, when one of his first cars was not only made from hemp fiber, but also run on hemp oil, Rudolph Diesel himself designed the diesel engine to run on hemp oil, something I do not remember learning in school, so how long has the truth been off the agenda?

 

“Why use the forests which were centuries in the making and the mines which required ages to lay down, if we can get the equivalent of forest and mineral products in the annual growth of the fields?” Henry Ford 

 

Henry ford was speaking of ethanol and bio diesel, both Ford and Diesel opposed big oil, and rightfully so, and so should any who look forward to a renewable future. One must wonder how years of recent debate on the climate and Co2 has never given rise to public debate on hemp, not just because of its clean applications, but its known ability as one of the best carbon sinks.

 

Construction products such as medium density fiberboard, oriented strand board, and even beams, studs and posts can be made out of hemp. Because of hemp’s long fibers, the products will be stronger and/or lighter than those made from wood.

 

With deforestation such an important issue, and such a high price being allotted to forests for their stored Co2, via carbon trading initiatives, how could the use of hemp as both a carbon sink and an alternate textile be over looked?

 

Even today BMW is experimenting with hemp materials in automobiles as part of an effort to make cars more recyclable, it is hard to believe that over 25,000 materials used today could be made from hemp, but only silence at the request of ingrained multinational greed.

 

A quick google of the word, finds thousands of educated articles, from vehicles driving thousands of klms on hemp bio fuels, many medical break through’s including cancer cures, increased demand for hemp from the paper, recycle industries and our struggling primary producers.

 

While the Ideal plant is overlooked, the present diversions of important food drops to appease clean fuel production, is nothing but genocide in a starving world.

 

I find it hard to believe any government would allow synthetic cures to replace the natural products when the natural medicines have less if any side affects, even worse there has never been a hemp/marijuana related death, yet the government bans hemp, while endorsing tobacco and alcohol products?

 

I need not continue to list all the benefits or even to address the recreational use which seems to dominate debate in this country, what we should all demand is open and honest dialogue on the many possible uses of hemp in our society, with out the usual biases left over from the prohibition of the 1950’s.

 

It is also not amusing that those who opposed hemp and worked towards its demise as a household product are the very same players that benefited from its demise, and if we look at the beneficiaries of carbon trading, the same names appear.

 

Hemp has been an important part of human society for thousands of years, and has always been a very beneficial crop and remains that way today; the only self-interest we should allow as a society, is that of what is best for the people, by representatives that remember that fact.

 

 

Mark M Aldridge

Independent Candidate and Proud supporter of the “Australian Alliance”

www.markmaldridge.com  Debate on http://www.australianalliance.org Uniting all Candidates that put the people first

aldridgemark@bigpond.com

08 82847482 / 0403379500

The Australian Gillard Carbon Tax Explained

July 17, 2011

 

The Carbon Tax explained

 

The Climate change debate continues on like a broken record, first we debated the dubious science, then even whether debate was allowed, then it was the up and coming ineptly named Carbon Tax, the current government promised us we wouldn’t have, souring our already down-trodden system of democracy, now its all about the tax we have to have, and how it will work.

At this stage there will be a little debate on the huge tax payer funded campaign to sell us this tax we have to have, with very few people even realizing we are signed to unconditional treaties with the UN to reduce what they are calling Carbon pollution.

Fact is, it is not about Carbon or even the Co2 they hope to tax, it is about series of issues, a new world wide monitory system, a huge income for the UN who will be on 10% of the net tax take by those countries who come on board the whole carbon trading debacle, and further empowering the UN and world bank towards a one world style complex.

It is somewhat expected many will doubt the ideal Co2 drives the climate, but the truth is the government don’t even believe it, it has more so become an issue, about how we measure our reliance on carbon based fuels, which most would agree we must reduce our reliance on.

Those promising to jump on board the train wreck called carbon trading, do not have the ability to change the weather, combined those countries backing a tax system are only producing a mere 12% of the Co2 worlds Co2 emissions, even if they all decided to close shop tomorrow, with the likes of China, India and the US, turning their backs on the carbon tax ideal, measures taken by those countries participating will have no affect, with total emissions of Co2 rising around the world.

The Say Yes campaign, is simply that say yes to what ever the Labor Gillard government put on the table, they say yes before they knew the details, now they know, when it was 1000 top polluters and now it is 500, in fact, the very same groups like GetUp that fund the Yes campaign, said Yes to Labor, even when Gillard was saying no to a carbon tax.

It is issues like the Say yes campaign and the general big money push to sell the new tax agenda, that be little the whole “Climate Change” debate, add to this the UN’s self interest, their lead authors exposure of the biased final reports and the organizations that are set to profit from a Carbon taxes introduction, that have resulted in over 80% of the Australian people remaining skeptical about the whole issue.

How much carbon pollution will actually be reduced by the Gillard Government’s carbon tax? If you’ve been following the debate, you’ll have the Prime Minister repeat the figure “160 million tonnes” a number of times, which, she is keen to point out, is the equivalent of taking “45 million cars” off the road, dodgy figures to say the least.

The figures come from the sophisticated economic modelling performed by Treasury for the carbon policy. The Treasury models suggests that to meet Australia’s target of a 5 per cent (which a few weeks ago was 10%) cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, we’re going to have to emit around 152 million tonnes less carbon dioxide, they label in the report Pollution. lol

But it turns out that the majority of this abatement will not come from Australian industry or consumers — or from Australia at all. According to Treasury, 94 million tonnes of that 152 million tonnes will come from “internationally-sourced abatement” we will pay for the stored carbon in trees in other countries, so it is nothing more than a money transfer scheme, so big polluters can to some degree continue business as usual.

The Gillard government didn’t even consider Cap and trade, which would have forced the lowering of emissions, preferring to opt for the easiest model to sell, knowing all too well, big business would have stood against such a restrictive measures, which would not be so easily be passed on to an unsuspecting public.

At the same time all this trading is going on, the initial cost to polluters will simply be passed on to the Australian public, opening the door to massive increased profits by the very same people in charge both of polluting and estimating how much they emit.

The part of the argument least explained is how we measure Co2 emissions, in the most, the figures are supplied by the very polluters themselves, and the fact they have known the tax is done deal for many years now, they wouldn’t fudge the figures would they?

Section 5.2.2 of the Treasury modeling document explains why. “While pricing carbon cuts domestic emissions, it is inefficient to meet the whole abatement task through domestic abatement,” Treasury writes. “Purchasing recognized international permits leads to real reductions in global emissions, just like reducing our domestic carbon pollution.”

In other words, buying carbon credits from other countries is cheaper than achieving the same cuts domestically — and the least-cost strategy for reducing carbon emissions is the entire point of putting a price on Carbon dioxide in the first place.

In brief, the few countries adopting a carbon based tax scheme, will pay out billions of dollars to poorer nations, while the biggest polluters will continue to raise emissions negating every effort by participating nations.

So what is this “internationally-sourced abatement”, and how will it work?

The Kyoto process has a strategy for achieving this, called the Clean Development Mechanism, which “allows emission-reduction projects in developing countries to earn certified emission reduction (CER) credits, each equivalent to one tonne of CO2. These CERs can be traded and sold, and used by industrialized countries to a meet a part of their emission reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol.”

It may interest some readers that carbon trading will be an all new monitory scheme, with many names already on board, like Rothschild’s and the Macquarie Bank who are already setting up in Australia, begging the question how many hands will be in the huge tax pie? With neither of these players entering the market for the sole benefit of the environment.

The UN also has a scheme in place to prevent deforestation called REDD, which stands for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries. In theory, these mechanisms should allow for the orderly and well-regulated international trading of carbon credits, as they are often known, allowing polluting companies in Australia to offset their emissions here by buying up cheap carbon abatement in less industrialized countries.

Only a couple of weeks ago, I met a man making a small fortune in Asia, by selling this fact, these poorer nations will make more money protecting their forests than logging them, one of the few benefits of the trading scheme, yet once again, lots of money will still change hands, and even more figures produced to suit an agenda. With huge profits in the estimation of carbon held.

So a forest being protected in a poorer nation, will be worth a fortune, for doing nothing, for every tree not cut down, we will be able to continue to pollute on the Co2 guessed to be stored in that tree or forest, so much for cutting down emissions.

The reality on the ground will be rather different. Carbon trading is wide open to rorts. A 2008 paper by Stanford University academics David Victor and Michael Wara examined more than 3000 projects in the Clean Development Mechanism, and concluded many of them didn’t represent genuine emissions reductions. “It looks like between one and two thirds of all the total CDM offsets do not represent actual emission cuts”, Victor told the Guardian back in 2008.

For every dodgy CDM created, polluters will be able to continue on their merry way, at the same time value adding, by passing on initial costs to the end users, and making more on the whole trading estimates.

The European Union suspended trading just recently, finding billions of dodgy trading permits were being traded, so who will we be buying credits from, and how much will it cost genuine environmental issues? The value of credits has been known to jump up and down dramatically as the big players manipulate the entire trading market.

The Clean Development Mechanism has also been criticised for the way developing countries can “game” the system. In one case that came to light last year, a number of chemical companies in developing countries appeared to be actually increasing their production of certain greenhouse gases in order to cash in on the lucrative carbon credits available by committing to “reduce” their production at a later date, something I wrote about a few years ago, trust trust trust, but who, a lying government, big polluters, the UN, the world bank?

Carbon markets themselves have faced their own issues, with a recent World Bank report on the state of the international carbon market describing a dramatic collapse in volume in the world trade since the global financial crisis. “This bodes very badly for the countries we are trying to help,” the World Bank’s envoy for climate change Andrew Steer told reporters. “The carbon market is failing us.”

The decision to include international permits from “credible trading schemes” like the EU and New Zealand may look like the Gillard Government is strictly regulating the matter, but as aforementioned, many of the projects in developing countries financed by the European ETS are of dubious value in actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, it may well be that carbon credits from Europe that are sourced from fraudulent or misreported emissions reductions sources could flood into the Australian market. It appears no one really knows what will happen.

If one investigates the success of those EU countries that adopted the tax system in 2005, the success rates are less than favorable, with most continuing to raise emissions and some are now enduring financial crisis.

Lest we forget, Australia will join very few countries enacting the tax on its people, the total committed nations only account for 12% co2 emissions of man made co2 production totaling 3% of the worlds man made emissions, of the 0.0something % speculated to be in the atmosphere, and none of them are about to shut down, with projected reductions of 20% over the next decade, so do the sums.

Our ex Prime Minister Mr Howard told ABC’s Insiders the global scene has changed and the rest of world is not acting.” The belief was that the rest of the world would follow and would be going in the same direction but they’re not,” he said.

“I mean the Americans – and I’ve just been in the United States – and there’s no chance in the world of the Americans embracing an emissions trading system.” The Indians aren’t, the Chinese aren’t. We are crazy to be going ahead of the rest of the world.” Mr Howard concluded.

What we do know is that many Australian banks are already gearing up to arbitrage and speculate on carbon markets, including the Macquarie Group. We also know that Australia’s own emissions will actually increase. As economist Frank Jotzo pointed out this week, Australian domestic emissions will rise by 12 per cent to 2020 on 2000 levels, with all of our greenhouse gas “reductions” coming from the purchase of international credits, so the fact is we will be continuing business as usual, with a huge new cost to our economy, ending up of shore in the hands of big business and foreign interests.

Solar rebates, LPG rebates, feedback schemes already proven to be a success are being dumped by the Gillard government, and none of these schemes applied to the biggest power or fuel users in the first place.

If any had thought at least the new tax will raise money to help the Gillard government get out of the debt hole they have created in the past few years, are you wrong, with treasury speculating over 4 billion will be lost from treasury in the first year alone, so we pay the new tax now and through lost governmental spending, putting the country even further in debt.

I might have a break and go out side and add up all the trees in my forest, so I can sell the stored carbon to a polluter in Australia, or overseas, based on who offers the most, that will cover my added costs for a while, then I can cut a few down in a few years and sell the firewood, and who would notice.

Mind you before I get excited by my years of planting trees as an environmentalist, I dare not forget the Peter Spenser case, where he was restricted from clearing his own land, as the commonwealth government had already pledged his stored carbon to the original UN protocols we are a signatory to, so I may not even own the value of my stored carbon.

Before the sell of the new carbon tax, I could get a rebate for solar power, I could get money back feeding excess green energy into the grid, I could self invest with support to convert my vehicle to LPG, and even address other measures, but “Not” now the tax is in! So promising not to cut down the trees, I had no intention to cut down, is all I can offer under the new scheme, and I make money for it, this is the new tax in a nut shell.

I wonder if I can purport to emitting 10,000 tons a year, then put in a new report saying I no longer do, ahhh even more money for me, 10,000 tons at $23, very nice, but big polluters would never do that, as they care about our planet don’t they.

There is no doubt the initial reported price on carbon of $23 is just the start, with many players on the governmental panel (in particular the Greens) demanding a starting price of $50 a ton, but all this is insignificant compared to the devastating impact on the Australian people, once the tax being applied to agriculture and farming after 2015, something I am sure the government and the media will forget to mention.

The Nationals own figures confirm, adding the tax to say a smaller family owned wheat farmer, will add an instant $17,000 to their overheads alone, at the lowest rate, either wiping them out or resulting in a huge increase in our cost for our food production.

Say Yes, but to open debate and transparency, but not blindly to a new tax, and if you care about the environment, say No, and demand we get back on track with our current system of environmental protections, which placed us as one of the better performing countries, with out the need for new tax.

The governments own reports are clear, our current 230 stealth taxes and abatements costing the country $44 a ton, which most have no idea exist, work well, if we go back to the drawing board, lower the cost of the huge management of regulating 230 different systems, we will do more for less, and we can toss the new tax in the bin.

The only problem with my ideas is the UN, the World Bank, Macquarie Bank, and the super rich organizations like the Rothschild’s will all loose, and the environment will join the people of Australia as the financial winners, so what is your guess will happen?

 

Mark Aldridge Independent Candidate

Proud supporter of the Alliance

www.markmaldridge.com  www.australianalliance.org  aldridgemark@bigpond.com

08 82847482 / 0403379500

Afghanistan, heroin and Australia’s role

July 16, 2011

Does the Australian government support heroin production?

 

What really goes on in the world while its citizens are grassing in the paddocks, Australia is part of a coalition force serving for the long term in Afghanistan, and we are sold the fact they are there to defend democracy, and tackle the war on terror, so exactly what does that mean?

 

The question begs, does Afghanistan even want democracy? I had always thought the Muslim community were not all that supportive of democracy, let alone the blatant fact we here in Australia, could do with our own policing of democracy, considering the raft of recent attacks on our electoral performance here in our own country.

 

A few years ago, confidential information received through my in box, made it clear, heroin production in Afghanistan during the coalitions occupation had risen 500%, not that I am an expert, but I would have thought the exact opposite, considering huge fields of poppies would be an easy target for out allied troops.

 

“In 2001, poppy fields covered 7600ha and produced 185 tonnes of opium, last year they covered 131,000ha and produced 6900 tonnes” other reports “The International Narcotics Control Strategy Report said the area of land used to cultivate opium poppies reached 30,750 hectares, compared with 1,685 hectares in 2001”

 

The Taleban rely heavily on the huge profits of illicit drug production, so wiping out such crops would be a prime objective in my eyes, and the serious damage the drug does here in Australia alone, would benefit from the destruction of its production in any country.

 

Well it has now become worse, Australia this year has endured a huge rise in heroin use, and guess where it is coming from, you guessed it Afghanistan, when questioned on the Issue, our army seniors, made the statement “we need to support the suffering poor farmers” in relation to the poppy growers, with the excuse, if they destroyed their plantations, they may defect to the Talliban?

 

“The Australian Crime Commission and Australian Federal Police say Afghanistan is becoming the dominant source of heroin in this country, accounting for as much as two-thirds of the drug imports in recent years.”

 

We are not talking about wealthy poppy farmers by any means, and considering the cost to our global society, resulting from the war on such drugs, let alone the war on terror, could we not support the Afghan farmers find an alternate crop, of even throw them a little income stream, rather than turn a blind eye?

 

What this appears to be saying to the Australian public, is that our government have little if any interest in protecting our farmers, who produce our food stocks, but they will support farmers growing one of the worlds most dangerous illicit drugs, that funds terrorism on world wide basis, or have I missed the point?

 

This issue begs the question “where are the huge profits from the heroin trade really ending up?”

 

The BBC recently reported “Afghanistan retook its place as the world’s leading producer of heroin last year, after US-led forces overthrew the Taleban which had banned cultivation of opium poppies.”

 

I doubt the thousands of families torn apart by heroin addiction will sleep soundly in the knowledge our own troops are defending the production of such a devastating drug, let alone the hundreds of thousands of victims who suffer as a direct result of the addicts need for funding of such an expensive addiction.

 

“UN figures show over 10,000 people die every year from heroin use, in the EU alone”

 

While our troops turn a blind eye, back home we are spending millions trying to stem the tide of the illegal drug smuggling, so common sense is with out doubt of the agenda, so what is on the agenda is a question worth asking.

 

In conclusion it would appear, “oil is not the only product worth going to war over”

 

I wonder if our supposed leader “Julia Gillard” would like to answer this question, but then do we have a media source that dare ask it?

 

Mark M Aldridge

Independent

Proud supporter of the Alliance

Carbon Tax, the full article

July 6, 2011

The great global warming/carbon tax debate

 

Ohh well here we go, I have once again drowned my brain with weeks of conflicting information, and after around 8 years into the debate, it appears I am none the wiser, and will continue to be labeled a denier amongst many other colorful terms, even though I am a staunch environmentalist and believer in climate change.

 

The conclusions the climate does change, co2 is considered a green house gas, man has had a massive effect on the environment and the IPCC scientists have proven our actions have a “likely” affect on the climate, wont save me the name calling.

 

Many facts while taking up this study are clear, Australia’s promise to the UN to lower Co2 emissions appears not negotiable, so the Gillard “Co2 tax package” is to become a part of our future, regardless of the will of the people, how it is introduced, how much it will cost, its affect on the weather, its environmental impact, and where the money goes, appears all we have left to debate, or do we?

 

*“Australia’s 2020 Copenhagen commitment to an unconditional emissions reduction target”

 

On top of my years of interest, reading and speaking on the topic, the information in this report comes from the 4 IPCC reports, The Australian Governments latest comprehensive reports, a variety of credible scientific articles and news broadcasts.

 

While the world toils over the whole debate, division appears an important part of the agenda, misinformation, spin, and self-interest clouding the truth, if indeed a simple truth exists. The biggest looser is unfortunately the future of the environment, the one part of the game; both believers and deniers have lost sight of, and the very thing that could unite us all.

 

If we study the United Nations IPCC reports, the facts support both sceptics and believers, the world is to continue warming, regardless of any action we take, due to the time lines associated with climate warming, the lead authors and chairman of the reports in the most have been critical of the final result, some what a direct result of the UN’s self interest, the trillions of dollars they will control over the next decade to play the worlds Robin Hood, (10% of our Carbon Tax, will go direct to the UN) appears to have had an impact in their final released reports.

 

*Former IPCC chairman Robert Watson has said “The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact.”

 

*(The 2007 IPCC reports was clear, Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized)

 

The reports also clearly indicates we are no longer in a warming cycle, somewhat backing the sceptics position, while at the same time confirming to a large degree Co2 is having an affect on the temperature of the planet, backing the believers, so it comes down to how much, what can we do, and the urgency of the situation.

 

*Keith Shine, one of IPCC’s lead authors, discussing the Policymakers’ Summary, said: “We produce a draft, and then the policymakers go through it line by line and change the way it is presented…. It’s peculiar that they have the final say in what goes into a scientists’ report”

 

The massive “Say Yes” campaign, with out even knowing what one is saying yes to, and words like “Carbon Pollution” to describe Co2 emissions, is not helping and idea of unity, stepping back from the environment in favor of debating what the weather will be like in a centuries time adds no real urgency and offering hand outs and excluding fuel from the proposed tax, while allowing massive mining expansion, offshore investment, while reducing self investment in renewable energy is just plain stupidity.

 

*“The government report makes it clear that mining, industry and fuel account for over 60% of our emissions”

 

Cutting back solar rebates, feedback schemes, LPG incentives and green industry support by the very same government demanding the new tax regime, seems to have flown under the radar. Just as the disappearing act of the current $44 per ton, in favor of a $26 per ton price in the new tax.

 

While we are arguing over a basically harmless gas, our eyes have been diverted from the real issues, the attacks on the environment continue, the current hard fought environmental protections already in place are being cut back, and our democratic rights are being destroyed right in front of out eyes.

 

Make no mistake, the Gillard governments carbon tax price of $26 a ton, is only in the initial sell, with many on the panel, arguing figures of over $50 are more appropriate, add to this the proposed inclusion of primary producers after 2015, and Australia is to be hit hard financially.

 

I have to conclude that which ever way we read the reports, it is clear we must take action, more so to reduce our reliance on carbon based fuels in favor of renewable energy and the urgent need to protect and restore our environment. The emissions of Co2 have become more of a way of measuring our reliance on carbon-based fuels, rather than the most important part of the overall vision of a sustainable future.

 

The very fact the Gillard plan is not to become a cap and trade, will put no pressure on polluters to curb their emissions but rather simply pass on the increased costs, but the government know that, it is in their own reports. The reports also confirm we are already one of the leaders in cutting Co2 emissions, one must ask where the current $44 a ton we are already paying in over 230 stealth taxes identified by the governments latest report will end up, general revenue?

 

*“Australia’s suite of measures appears to have been much more cost effective and to have produced more abatement.”

 

So lets get into the facts, Australia produces around 1.2% of the worlds carbon dioxide emissions, of the 3% man contributes to the total out put of Co2, which is only a minor percentage of green house gases and we are not about to shut down, so at the best we may be able to cut back our emissions by 20% on 1990 figures over the next 20 years, at a cost of upwards of 12 billion in the first year alone.

 

To the every day Aussie, this means by 2020, twice the amount of people, will have to live on a lot less resources, and endure a much higher cost of living, heading us back to hardships we have all worked hard to put behind us.

 

Australia will join with a hard full of countries that combined emit around 11%, of the worlds 3% contribution to Co2 emissions, while some countries will not only continue on with business as usual, but continue to increase their emissions and seemingly with less environmental protections than we presently have worked hard to achieve.

 

In the first 5 years of the EU tax scheme the success rate was not in line with expected forecasts with England increasing Co2 by 5.8%, Estonia and Demark up to 21%, Finland up 28%, Sweden were the only stand out with a reduction of 20%, in the most the carbon tax was passed on by polluters and most emissions across the participating countries rose.

 

Iceland’s recent volcanic eruption emitted 150-300,000 tons of CO2 daily— taking only 9 days to over ride the Co2 output saved in the most successful country (Sweden), so taking on Mother Nature is going to be a hard ask.

 

*(Sweden’s carbon dioxide emissions in the trading sector totaled 17.5 million tonnes in 2009. This means that emissions in the trading scheme have decreased by 2.6 million tonnes in comparison with 2008. The trend towards decreasing total emissions from Swedish companies covered by emissions trading is thus continuing)

 

*Note (Japan, Germany, United Kingdom, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand combined contribute less than china, who are not adopting effective action)

 

Richard Branson hit the nail on the head when he said today “With the carbon tax, ideally it should be done on a global basis,” Sir Richard told reporters at the Asia Pacific Cities Summit in Brisbane yesterday, making mention of the fact, we will be disadvantaged on a global scale, if we are only part of 12% of the world carbon emitters adopting the tax.

 

So the whole debate is about lowering by around 20 to 30% on 1990’s figures, the Co2 emissions of countries that contribute 12% of the worlds 3% of co2 emissions, (only a minority green house gas) while other countries raise emissions by more than is saved, considering the fact the tax system already adopted in a hand full of countries has failed to meets its targets, surely shows we should air on the side of caution?

 

The United States estimates committee came up with a cost of over 700 trillion dollars to hopefully lower the world temperature by 1.0 degree in one hundred years time, yet the IPCC say the weather cant be lowered in such a short time period, so how much will it cost and what can we achieve? (Remembering the IPCC’s own chairs say these figures are inflated)

 

*(IPCC figures; the average surface temperature is projected to increase by 1.4 to 5.8 Celsius degrees over the period 1990 to 2100, and the sea level is projected to rise by 0.1 to 0.9 meters over the same period)

 

So, why the sudden desperation for a huge tax, by the very same government that only months earlier promised, “Vote for us and we will NOT introduce a carbon tax” to be elected? When their own report ordered by Bill Shorten, clearly shows we are not just doing business as usual, and in fact are already one of the better performing countries?

 

The sudden power of the green agenda has played a big part in the governments position, of Labor’s 72 federal seats, 44 (or 61%) come courtesy of Greens’ preferences. That includes eight Labor MPs who finished second on primary vote and fell over the line after big boosts from the Greens.

 

But all leads are not direct to Labor or the greens, in the most they lead to big money, so are the genuine environmental concerns of the people being used to promote a not so hidden agenda?

 

There already sites teaching people how to play the carbon credit market, so many will be making money “how to broker carbon credits” yet nobody questions who will be paying for the profit of the traders, will it be the environment or the tax payer?

 

The EU Trading scheme goes somewhat like this. Like any other financial instrument, trading consists of matching buyers and sellers between members of the exchange and then settling by depositing a valid allowance in exchange for the agreed financial consideration. Much like a stock market, companies and private individuals can trade through brokers who are listed on the exchange, and need not be regulated operators.

 

*Richard Martin, the chief executive officer of Rothschild Australia said, “With recent developments in international climate change policy, the question is no longer if, but when the global carbon trading market will emerge. Rothschild Australia, through Carbon Ring, intends to be at the forefront of this market, providing private investment vehicles to companies seeking to offset their greenhouse gas emissions liabilities.” Carbon trading in the Asian pacific is estimated to be worth 150 billion by 2012

 

The European Union just recently suspended trading, finding billions missing from their scheme, and you can bet the average tax payer didn’t find it in their wallets, the money is huge, the speculation massive, the spin is overwhelming, and the people are being kept divided, sound familiar?

 

Dare we as a global community allow more hands in “Carbon Credits” pie, when the environment needs more rather than less financial support?

 

So where to from here, as a long term political candidate, I am nothing but a commentator, so it would be hard to consider I have all the answers, and I do not, if we are currently one of the leading countries regarding environmental protection and the reduction of Co2 emissions with out the new Carbon tax, then it would appear the current system is only flawed by the very fact we are drowning in the red tape of 230 current schemes, brought about by being over governed and over regulated, so fine tuning and improving our current system of renewable energy subsidies and carbon reduction ideals seems an educated approach.

 

Tackling environmental issues head on, appeases both sides of the divide, bringing with it the unity that seems currently to be of the agenda, increase investment in renewable energy in the same way we have been heading, while funding investment and innovation in mass power storage systems to ensure green energy can power a modern industrial economy are steps forward, with out any need for a new tax.

 

Applying schemes like the LPG and Solar panel rebates to small and big business rather than only the public, who are not the greatest users of our resources seemed flawed from the onset, but our government seem obsessed with big business and buying votes from the electorate.

 

*The use of the word Likely through out the IPCC’s final 2007 report, clearly supports the need to continue to investigate and question, facts from the report are clear Global average sea level in the last interglacial period (about 125,000 years ago) was likely 4 to 6 m higher than during the 20th century.. Ice core data indicate that average polar temperatures at that time were 3°C to 5°C higher than present, because of differences in the Earth’s orbit, so the report confirms that the planet has been much hotter with out human co2 contributions.

 

There are a host of new innovations in green power, but with subsidies of the new agenda and government ideals like interest free loans for advanced innovation in the same sinking boat, I feel we are heading in the wrong direction, even debate on Hemp, which could not only help as a carbon sink, and take up the roll of deforestation for paper and textile manufacturing, a range of building products and alternate green fuel production, has had no place in this debate.

 

If the world climate is to create increased disasters, one would think our agenda would include increased infrastructure to ensure we can cope with what the weather is about to dish out, increased hospital beds, potable water supplies, green power storage, stable food production, yet even here we are not only falling behind, but going in the opposite direction.

 

With the government investing 12 million of our money to sell us a tax, we have to have, is outright waste, offering us money back to compensate us for the huge costs of living about to be passed on by the big polluters reminds me of the many billion dollar failures we have already had to endure, the School halls fiasco, the Insulation debacle, cash for clunkers just to name a few.

 

If we cant trust our government to honor their promises made only months ago, if we have become used to their lack of ability to see into our future beyond the term between elections, can we dare trust them to change the long term weather?

 

”I sometimes during this debate ask myself, if we are still on a global scale recovering from an ice age, and the weather is meant to get warmer, Co2 is meant to increase as a result, rainfall with it, to induce increased plant growth, could it be mother natures way of rectifying our wrongs, and all we have to do is give her a hand, by stemming deforestation, population growth and improve other more acceptable environmental approaches other than planning ourselves to change the weather for her?”

 

*(Climate-carbon cycle coupling is expected to add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere as the climate system

warms, but the magnitude of this feedback is uncertain) So clearly warming it self increases Co2 emissions, which throws doubt on the affect even a world wide carbon reduction scheme may have! 

 

With our education system, the media, and so much advertising money backing the tax and the political science behind the driver of our climate, all with the full support of the mighty political machine, even those who dare question the way forward, will be deterred from speaking out, and those that do, have very little chance of being heard, so don’t fool yourselves this is an open debate in any respect.

 

 

*For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected.

 

Say Yes will tell you we cant continue with business as usual, they will use words like peer-reviewed science, and the proofs is in, and label any who still have questions, even going as far as running campaigns to manipulate polls and shut down any skeptical views, as easily seen with the attacks on Lord Monkton, who has every right to present his views, if free speech still has any value in our society.

 

I say the evidence is in, the science is still open to some debate, the urgency for a new tax is not warranted, or democratically supported, we are heading in the right direction for our environment, and we should continue to lead by example, rather than follow what appears to be a failing would wide monetary scheme, more than the savior of our planets future.

 

*Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity.

 

It is defiantly up to us, to lead the world in way we treat the planet, we must reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and embrace renewable energy and much needed mass power storage, to continue to raise awareness about our failing eco systems and to find a compassionate way forward for all the people to live comfortably and in a sustainable way, and I fear putting all our eggs in the one basket, which will be held by a dubious one world type government in the UN and the world bank, may not be the best way forward for any sovereign nation.

 

Toss the words “Carbon tax” and “Climate change” in the bin, and go back to concentrating our money and efforts into environmental protection as a community united, and we all win, our Country wins, our planet wins and so does our children’s future.

 

Mark M Aldridge

Independent Candidate

“Proud member of the Alliance”

 

*denotes statements from the following and reliable media reports

 

http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/AR4/website/fi.pdf

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/contents.html

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter3.pdf

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/109830/carbon-prices.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Elections in Australia the “Truth”

July 4, 2011

The Alliance Australia

“In the pursuit of unity”

*TAKING UP THE FIGHT FOR DEMOCRATIC CHANGE FOR ALL AUSTRALIANS*

 

Democracy and electoral reform 2011

 

 

Democracy is the corner stone of society; it allows the people to rule by way of the election of political representatives by way of a free and informed choice.

 

In an honest and perfect world Australia’s system of democracy works well, if indeed the outcome complied with the forewords “Free will of an informed electorate”;

 

Our present system fails from the onset, one MUST attend, one MUST prefer every candidate, the counting of votes MUST benefit the 2 major parties and one BEST not know who the candidates are, in itself defeats any ideal of honest democracy, in regards to the ideal of Free and informed outcomes.

 

The electoral systems in Australia continues to suffer from increased structural biases as a direct result of those who write the electoral legislation having the most to gain from such biases rather than an independent authority basing their decisions on what the people themselves deserve or demand.

 

The media in general do not help matters with their sights set squarely on the leaders of the 2 major parties Labor and Liberal, the same 2 who dictate electoral law and seem to control democracy on every front. While the media keep their sites set on the leaders, we tend to forget that the parties choose their leaders not we the people.

 

Representation by the people for the people fails immediately, as does the ability of our representatives to connect with those they are employed to represent, when democracy becomes dictated to us rather than working in our best interests.

 

It has become evident that the current “Two Party system” has become a failure, with most candidates and members from with in their ranks, pledging allegiance to the party to secure nominations, rather than to the people and the best interests of Australia.

 

Most Australians would have very little insight into the 2 party machinery, questions about who dictates their policy directives also stain democracy, do the un-elected with in their ranks decide our destiny?

 

The facts are, even if we had an honest and fair electoral system, these parties would still have a huge advantage over any minor players, simply by way of ingrained media support and huge financial advantage compliments of taxpayer dollars with out even mentioning the big dollar support form their corporate friends.

 

One could easily imagine with so much power awarded to the 2 party system, they have little reason to fear the people, as in most cases they end up with our vote regardless, there is a very famous saying that sums it up “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny”

 

Ideal democracy is very easy to achieve, easy and equal access to information on the candidates and their ideals, freedom of choice as to whether we are inspired to vote and whom we prefer, and ensuring the counting of votes results in the most preferred candidate being elected to represent the “will of the people”, yet our current system denies us all of this.

 

To Back up these ideals, we need to be certain those elected by the people make decisions based on their conscience and our best interests, something the dictatorial 2 party machine restricts, with most current members voting along the party line (set party policy) rather than in the best interests of the electorate they are paid to represent.

 

There are many recent changes to electoral legislation and general conduct that further undermine the democracy we all deserve; these can be put into 3 categories, Law, Election conduct and Dodgy practices.

 

LAW; State Electoral Acts differ from state to state, and the Federal Act is again unique, so I will include a few examples,

 

  • The electoral commission can guess your intention, further than what you mark on your ballot, effectively changing your vote.
  • Some Ballot papers have blank squares which is where you vote for a candidate, usually Independents, a law designed to ensure the parties are empowered rather then the people.
  • The use of Pencils, including the issue of rubbers for staff and allowing changes to the ballot papers in every case.
  • Laws that ensure the results of a general election stand regardless of the conduct or the count.
  • Legislation that ensures electoral promises need not be kept.

 

ELECTION CONDUCT;

 

  • Information on the candidates and voting tickets going missing
  • Polling booths running out of Ballot papers
  • Regular voters names being removed from the electoral roll
  • Postal ballot papers going missing in the tens of thousands
  • Parties sending out postal ballot applications with the return pre paid envelope addresses to their party office
  • People turned away from polling booths based on how they are dressed
  • Lack of transparent and educated support of our needy in hospitals and nursing homes, including reports of undue influence.
  • Identity theft and multiple voting issues
  • Out of date and dodgy inclusions on the electoral rolls
  • Ignorance by polling booth staff to their duty to assist the public

 

DODGY PRACTICES

 

  • Political parties dressing up as opposition parties and handing out dodgy how to vote information
  • Parties registering opposition leaders names as “Reply paid addresses” so voters who send information to their preferred party, find their information is going to the opposite party.
  • Misinformation, and false promises to secure your vote
  • Deliberate lies to secure office
  • Elected officials refusing to take the oath required under the constitution to hold office
  • Commonwealth solicitors attacking our common law right to a vote.

 

 

The electoral commissioner under section the Act, (SA section 8) is responsible for the proper conduct of elections under the Act and for the carrying out of appropriate programmes of publicity and public education, to “Ensure that the public is adequately informed of their democratic rights and obligations, yet surveys carried out during and prior to elections confirms a huge majority had no idea of their rights and obligations, so consider who employs and chooses the electoral commissioner.

 

The Electoral Commissioner MUST keep the electoral rolls up to date, yet they are not, The Electoral Commissioner MUST have certain equipment and information for use in the polling booths on the day of the election, yet they are not,

 

Ask your self and your friends if they feel so informed, and while you are at it, also ask why “how to vote guides” are no longer supplied to the electorate. The courts have concluded that the interpretation is about how to vote, not who your choices are, and they still fail on that front. So whose job is it to ensure we are informed about our choices you may ask? The courts answered with the media, but cases against the media have concluded they are a private entity and answer to themselves, talking about passing the buck on any chance we have of honest democracy.

 

In 2007 I argued voters intention, as the Electoral Act says, 94 (6) Where—

(a) a ballot paper has not been marked by a voter in the manner required by this

Act; but

(b) despite that fact, the voter’s intention is clear,

the ballot paper is not informal and will be counted as if the voter’s intention had been

properly expressed in the manner required by this Act.

 

The outcome was your intention can be guesses by the commission, to ensure the vote counts for the major parties, even if you did not mark any of the squares on the ballot paper next to either.

 

YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE ELECTORAL ACT.

 

You have the right to receive a ballot paper, regardless of whether or not your name in on the electoral roll, you have the right to a replacement ballot paper if you make a mistake, you have the right to access all the candidates details and the right to voting ticket information (preference deals) in the polling booth, you have the right to enter the booth regardless of your dress sense, yet these rights are not always awarded.

 

The Constitution gives you the right (entitlement) to vote, and to vote only once, yet this is not policed, neither is your identity or registered address, and your vote can be transferred to a candidate you refused to prefer, this is not honest democracy.

 

THE REFORM PREFERED BY THE ALLIANCE;

  1. A voting booklet to every home, explaining how to vote, the electorate’s rights and obligations and all the candidates and their contact details.
  2. Identity to be produced prior to receiving the ballot papers.
  3. Voting and preferencing to be optional
  4. An independent Authority to oversee electoral reform and police election conduct.
  5. The introduction of accountability for electoral promises
  6. All ballot papers to have candidates details along side their voting squares
  7. The introduction of a rotating ballot paper in regards to the candidates names to eliminate “how to vote cards” and “The benefits of donkey votes to any one candidate.
  8. All ballot papers to be filled in with a permanent marker, and any mistakes to be allotted a new ballot paper.
  9. General election disputes to be based on merit with the support of the electoral authority.
  10. Regular enrollment checks and balances.
  11. The removal of any law that restricts freedoms of voters or candidates to make informed choice or vote on any topic based on their conscience.

 

IN CONCLUSION,

 

The government and the opposition are only interested in winning elections, not upholding your rights, fair play or a fair go, the electoral commission’s in general are willing to turn a blind eye and ignore their duties to the electorate, and the media are only interested in who the parties elect as leaders, not in public education.

 

So it is up to we the people to demand change, to use the system as best we can to elect honest people that can fight for electoral reform, and the Alliance Australia is the only lobby groups specializing in demanding honest reform, and supporting those groups and candidates who support these same ideals for change, and every patriotic Australian who will stand shoulder to shoulder with us.

 

Every elected member should be working together in the best interests of the country full stop!

 

The Alliance Australia is all about promoting honest elections, fighting for the peoples rights and empowering the many patriotic candidates to ensure they get a fair go.

 

Mark M Aldridge

Independent Candidate and Proud member of the Alliance Australia

aldridgemark@bigpond.com

www.markmaldridge.com.au

The Alliance and Democracy

July 1, 2011

Please down load, print and proudly display the LOGO, the more the merrier

The Alliance and Democracy

The electoral system in Australia has lost its way, called 2 party politics; it has become exactly that, laws written by the 2 parties to ensure they maintain power regardless of the preference of the Australian voter.

Honest democracy is about the election of representatives by the free will of an informed electorate, with the mandate that those elected do the will of their electorates.

Free and informed is very easy to achieve, easy access to the information about all the candidates that are running, what they stand for, fair and equal electoral laws and the freedom to endorse only those one prefers, with the winning candidate being the one with the most votes.

The Alliance is all about restoring these most basic and fundamental rights and values, so once again the people of this fine country can enjoy the results of a democratically elected government, who’s only aim, is to protect the Australian way of life.

MUST attend to vote, Must prefer every candidate, even those you do not know or in-fact oppose, is far from ideal and honest democracy, the counting of votes is also 2 party preferred (preferred by the 2 parties) again attacking the foundation of liberty, The media prefer the 2 parties, and not even their candidates just their leaders, who are elected again by the 2 parties.

Making matters worse, as the people continue to turn away from the corrupted 2 party system, they retaliate with even more laws to attack our most basic rights, laws to stop on line comment, restrict opposition parties and candidates, leaving names of ballot squares, and general misrepresentation.

Every Australian voter should be disgusted with recent dirty tactics being used by the major parties, from outright false promise for our votes to dressing up as other parties, intercepting electoral ballot applications, dodgy how to vote information and misleading information.

100’s of thousands of ballots papers go missing and the same can be said for informal votes, lest we forget tens of thousands of names missing from the electoral rolls, an unacceptable situation in any democratic country

The Key platform of the Alliance is to restore and police democracy, to demand honest elections, educated electoral reform, and to empower the peoples voice.

The Alliance is a grass roots peoples movement and support group for grass roots candidates both before, during and after elections, Independents, minor parties and any rights based and patriotic lobby groups.

To help them overcome the divide resulting from big money and taxpayer funded 2 party campaigns and media biases. To provide the people of Australia, with a credible third choice, in every seat of Australia.

Please read the basic pledge of the movement and consider your support, spreading the logo far and wide as our sign of unity in the fight for honest democracy.

The day we see the logo of the Alliance on every street, is the day as a movement, we will see change, by the free will of an informed Australia.

Mark M Aldridge

Alliance supporter