Posts Tagged ‘Co2’

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”  Debate on Uniting all Candidates that put the people first

08 82847482 / 0403379500


Climate Change the way forward

May 31, 2011




When the Labor government promised not to introduce a carbon tax, as a primary election promise, did they believe that promise?


Now a Carbon tax is the most important and urgent issue facing the worlds future, Labor will spend a fortune ensuring the people now back the tax, their friends in GetUp will do like wise, and the big polluters will back them all the way to the bank, ask yourselves why?


While the science continues to be debated, for over a decade now, on exactly what drives changes in the climate, very few people have their eyes on the game. The fact is while believers and deniers of any part of the argument stand their ground, we should never forget we all have one thing in common, we want to both protect the environment and look towards an increase in renewable energy, for our children’s and our planets future.


A new tax will as usual be paid by those who can least afford it, and if we look to the countries that have introduced a Co2 based tax or credit scheme, the winners end up being the very ones who do the most polluting, doomed if we do, doomed if we don’t, is not the answer.


I am what they prefer to label a denier, as my research over the past decade, leads me to believe Co2 is not the driver of climate change, mind you I am not a denier that the climate changes, because it always has and always will, and I like the idea of more Co2, if it indeed will make us warmer, not just because I hate the cold, but with unsustainable population growth on the agenda, we will need increased crop production to feed such numbers, and increases in Co2, increase plant growth and crop yields.


The really stupid issue that is on the agenda, is crop diversion to increase bio fuel production, really what are they thinking, more people, less food stocks?


Anyway lets get back on topic, if we all agree on saving the environment and increasing investment in renewable energy, why in the hell are we still cutting down old growth forests, why is the growing of Cannabis of the agenda, a very worthy crop is such time, for all purposes on the agenda (feed, textiles, bio-fuels, carbon sinks?


Why cant we look towards rewarding innovation in clean fuels and renewable energy, rather than tax the big polluters, if I invent a new clean fuel source, do any of us believe I will get government support, no chance, yet in Europe it has been proven the big polluters have the most to gain from a carbon tax scheme, makes no sense.


Europe’s $100 billion market has been hit by a series of scandals over the past two years, including tax fraud and the re-sale of used carbon credits, and trading was temporarily shut in January after the theft of millions of emissions permits, and in this time, Co2 emissions are still on the rise, not a path Australia should go down.


Poor old Norway, introduced a carbon tax scheme and emissions have risen 43%, the big polluters just pay more tax, which they simply pass on to the end user, so ramming through the new carbon tax, with out open debate, or blindly following the governments position, is not a very educated approach from any person with our long term future as a primary concern.


Some facts in all these arguments are very clear, Australia only emits 1% of Co2, so if we shut down tomorrow, throw away the keys to the car, and sit freezing in our dark homes, we would have very little impact on world Co2 emissions, to be honest it would make matters worse, as our industry would simply relocate to countries whose industry standards are not as competent as ours, leading to increase global Co2 output, all very confusing isn’t it?


More people, less food and less power and water, is not the catch cry of an informed government, yet they tell us a new tax will change the weather, my god, they couldn’t even run a grocery watch website, of safely install ceiling insulation!


The People are already taxed enough, and big business get away with paying bugger all, so any scheme to enrich our future, must be based on fair and just terms, be open and transparent, and only reward those who put in the hard yards.


I would consider that a smart move to address change if we are indeed to face the predictions of the UN’s IPCC, would be to initiate adequate infrastructure projects to ensure a plentiful supply of power, food and potable water as a primary hoal, that we would as a world player, be ensuring that we are putting all our resources into preparing for what may lay ahead, be it cooling or warming of our climate.


Funnily enough our respective governments seem to be going in the other direction, the diversion of our food production to satisfy the green fuel agenda, the reduction of reliable power sources for the same reason, and very little advancement in storm water harvesting and increased water storage to ensure adequate food production.


I will leave you with this note; how do they measure Co2 emissions, have any of you seen a meter on a chimneystack? No you haven’t, so any scheme to tax Co2 is based on assumptions and the facts and figures supplied by the very people who emit the most pollution, do you trust them? Do you honestly believe you can trust anything our governments tell us? Do you believe any who invented the answer to our problems will be hailed heroes and receive huge government grants? I sincerely hope not.


The truth and all the answers are out there, and simply awaiting honest and open debate, so until such debate is on the agenda, lets agree to disagree, and unite in our planets best interests, its future.

”Skeptics and believers unite to debate the way forward” is the headline we need to see, but when did we last have a government interested in our views L


Mark M Aldridge

Independent Candidate

How much tax will change the weather?

May 20, 2011

How much tax will change the weather?

At first I was labeled a denier, then a skeptic, of which neither are correct, the simple fact is the weather changes, warmer and colder times are both behind and ahead of us as a planet, what drives the weather has been under the microscope now for nearly a decade, and clarity as to the exact drivers is far from set in concrete.

The very fact I have demanded open and honest debate, seems the only reason to have been labeled in such a way, and the whole well funded, one sided debate raises concern as to the credibility of the supposed findings, with any scientific skepticism being met with loss of credibility, funnily enough, isn’t genuine science about skepticism?

Does Co2 drive the climate, or does a rise in temperature drive the rise in Co2, and will a tax on Carbon change the weather, seem the important questions facing our short-term future.

Australian politicians are far from climate scientists, but found it easy to blame the drought on climate change, the fact we have now had the wettest summer on record, or in some cases close enough, does that negate the global warming theory?

Rewarding advances in “Green” technologies would seems appropriate, considering we reward those who back the Co2 caused global warming theory, but it seems the introduction of a new tax is the preferred method, sounds all very political to me, if the weather temperatures continue to decline will the tax be removed?

There have been so many ideals to deal with climate change from new world governments, to communist style share the riches type taxes, I personally do not know what they new proposed tax entails, will certain industries be exempt? Will the big polluters get carbon credits as found in the ETS, and just how much will it cost the average Australian?

I for one have never heard of any business absorbing any new expense regardless of from where it comes, so just how much more are we to all pay, what about our superannuating and investments? Where are your retirement savings being held?

We have already seen our manufacturing industries move of shore, for those that are left, how much will a new tax affect them, all the time remembering if they move of shore, or their products become uncompetitive, and are then sourced of shore, will that negate the Co2 savings, as many countries will not adopt the same carbon based tax system, and in fact produce more carbon to create the same produce.

If my prior studies serve me right, even if Australia shut down tomorrow, the affect on world wide Co2 production would be less than 1%, and if most of that carbon production was simply relocated to another country, the affect would be even less if any.

I ask this question, if the weather is about to change for the worse, what plans are in place to protect we the people, increased water storage, food and power production, stabilization of population growth, all seem to be of the agenda?

The Labor government couldn’t run a simple grocery watch website, they buggered up the home insulation scheme, and have made a mockery of our precious democracy, and now they think they can change the weather, scares the hell out of me.

The Governments of the past couple of decades, have had little if any ability to plan for our long term future, whether we look at water, power, health care, hospitals, taxation in general, even our natural resources and environment, and now they think they can change the long term weather for future generations?

How many great inventions lay idle, ideas for environmentally sound advances shelved, great projects like the snowy river scheme now nothing more than fond memories.

We must address the environment now, lower pollution, look to a sustainable future, increase recycling, improve on water storage and management, increase food production and better manage population growth, along with ensuring adequate base load power supplies, health care standards and decent education, and a huge new tax is not the educated answer to any of these needs.

Charge more and supply less is not the catch cry of an informed government with genuine foresight, and the diversion of desperately dwindling food crops to bio fuel production is nothing but genocide, just as leaving those most in need with out adequate base load power and potable water costs lives.

We all grew up in the knowledge doing the right thing is rewarded and buggering up brought with it accountability, so why not apply these age old values, make those that pollute accountable, and reward innovation, but what would I know, I am not a politician.

Mark M Aldridge


08 82847482 / 0403379500

PS; CARBON dioxide contains two oxygen atoms for every one carbon atom. Shouldn’t we call it an “oxygen tax”?