Posts Tagged ‘Gillards carbon tax’

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Climate change V the Environment

June 6, 2011

The way forward for the Environment deserves honest debate

 

First things first when addressing the planets future is that of the environment, lets push aside global warming debate and the associated decade old argument as to the true driver of climate, and get on with the real concerns, planning for future disasters, increasing renewable energy, reducing pollution and ensuring adequate supplies of potable water, power and food stocks.

 

They say sunshine and sea breezes can not power an industrial economy, I know I have voiced my concerns for many years, the only reason for this idealism, is lack of government funded research into mass power and water storage.

 

When considering the way forward, population, available resources, and future investment are of the utmost concern, interconnected national high speed mono rail, water and power transmission have always been of the table, as have major infrastructure plans akin to the Snowy river scheme.

 

Using under ground compressed air, pre-pumped hydro, Ultra capacitors and mass storage batteries like, Sodium Sulfur or “NAS” batteries, Lithium-ion Batteries and flow batteries as mass storage for existing green energy generation like solar and wind, would be the ideal step in the reduction of fossil fuel generation of base load power, even better is the fact, it would appease those who do and do not believe in Co2 caused warming.

 

I wonder is any scientists have considered mass water storage at high altitudes, water being pumped their by excess green energy, and using it supply water and hydro electricity when the sunshine or wind are not around, the water itself could add to much needed environmental flows, but such Ideals have become a thing of the past.

 

The diversion of vital crop production is nothing short of genocide while population growth is on the agenda of western capitalism, looking to the past of our societies we in the most overlook ideal crops for the many industrial gaps that would appear if we wish to address our long term environmental issues.

 

Hemp has long been taboo since the 1950’s and 60’s cannabis prohibition propaganda, yet in itself holds a lot of our answers, for those who hold Co2 emissions as our primary concern, hemp is renowned for its consumption of Co2 and other airborne pollution, grows quickly and consumes very little.

 

Bio fuels like ethanol or bio diesel, bio degradable plastics, textile and paper manufacturing, food stocks of the highest caliber and Omega 3 content, and latest break through in hemp building products and vehicle manufacturing, the applications are mind boggling.

 

“Why use up 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 hemp fields?” – Henry Ford

 

Nuclear power will now remain of the agenda due to catastrophes in recent times, but even prior, modern break through’s in High temperature pebble bed reactors, Alvis and simplex spent fuel recycling and isotope recovery, I wrote about a decade ago, have been in the most shelved for the past decade.

 

While people in my own state of South Australia drive around with hydrogen complimented vehicles, electric and bio=diesel powered transport, they do so in silence as not one of their ideas or the many issues I have raised so far are on the agenda, yet tens of thousands of people will blindly follow a huge billion dollar tax of which even the name is dodgy (carbon pollution tax) to describe Co2 the life blood of the planet, in which the government promise will change the weather.

 

Do we want to protect and save the environment or change the weather, or do some of, or all of the aforementioned Ideals do both? And ask your self; will any of these issues be part of the carbon tax agenda?

 

The sad fact is the 113 million the federal government will spend on promoting the carbon tax before the legislation is even on the table would cover research into all the ideals aforementioned.

 

With the government itself making it clear the 11 billion plus new “Carbon Pollution” tax will be passed onto we the people, and the regular proposed increases, the incentives for such innovations just wont be there, neither will any urgency for big polluters to curb their ways, it is far more likely that we will see fingers in the billion dollar pie, just as Europe recently uncovered.

 

If sea levels are to rise and cause hundreds of billions of dollars damage, why not take action to secure our low lying areas, and increasing investment in hospitals and emergency service, rather than plan to change the climate in which we live, because Australia has no hope of doing that alone as even if we closed down tomorrow, the IPCC them selves point to man made Co2 emissions of 3% and Australia at less than 1% of that, 20% of 1% of 3% of 0.28% make up of man made green house gas.

 

To be honest it is not about the weather, but about the environment, because they work hand in hand, it is all about the way forward for us as a global community, and to me it seems the biggest victim is the truth and honest and open debate.

 

The Carbon tax is a done deal in Australia even though polls show a majority of the people are against it, the Government are pulling all their resources, spending tens of millions of our money promoting their tax, using their lobby group GetUp with Union backing, and their media clout to ensure their promise is supported, with out even having to let us know the details, and our children are being taught the very same position in our schools, so the debate is already over, not even the mighty pen was heralded.

 

The sudden urgency of a tax on carbon, against such public opposition reeks of interference from an outside source, the words “Carbon Pollution” to describe Co2 belittles the truth, in the same way the argument that we can “change the weather”, divides the community, everyone debates the science, while those employed to sell the ideals like GetUP (Sorros/Unions) Labor (Garnaut) and the UN’s IPCC (Al Gore) are not climate scientists, and it is commonly known that any scientific opponents of the debate are chastised and find themselves out of work.

 

Al gores the “convenient truth” was torn to pieces in the high court for its use of misleading information, Australia’s advertising promotions, have been found wanting of the truth, using images of smoke stacks, billowing black smoke are of an English plant closed almost 30 years ago, 146 of the 150 people in our House of Representatives were elected at the last election on the specific promise that they’d say “no” to a carbon tax, yet still the supporters of the tax, seem to have no understanding as to why any would oppose it, maybe if truth was on the agenda, and it was called the “Save the Environment Tax” just maybe it would be swallowed easier.

 

It helps not that the Liberal opposition have nothing sensible on the table, which only empowers Labor’s new found supporters as if any action is better than none, which has become the catch cry of the new tax believers, leaving the rest of us with no choice but to oppose tax, with no just environmental plan to support, something we should have become accustomed in out ailing 2 party system.

 

The only way forward is to abandon the climate debate, and embrace the environmental needs of the planet, allow open and honest debate and start immediately to initiate rewards for innovation, and funding for mass power storage and alternate energy and crop production, and to come up with ideals to force big polluters to become accountable with out being able to pass the buck onto the end user.

 

Here’s to unity and open and honest debate.

 

Mark M Aldridge

Independent Candidate

Proud member of the Alliance

aldridgemark@bigpond.com

www.markmaldridge.com

Climate Change the way forward

May 31, 2011

CARBON TAX, CARBON POLLUTION THE ULTIMATE DIVERSION

 

 

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