Email to PM Gillard

5/12/10

Dear Prime Minister Gillard

With respect I am deeply disturbed by Mr McClelland’s efforts to devise legal actions against Mr Assange, and your recent statement(s) that the leaking of alleged classified information (WikiLeaks) was a “grossly irresponsible thing to do and an illegal thing to do" (SMH, 2010).

As an Australian citizen myself, I am deeply concerned for Mr. Assange’s well-being and safety.  Regardless of what may be construed of Mr. Assange’ conduct he is foremost a national and as far as I know entitled to rights and protections afforded by Australia.

Australians place extreme value on our human rights record and protections as you well know. Perhaps I may have misunderstood, but in democracy we elect leaders and governments to put us first, to look after our survival and interests, diverse as they be, above and beyond the reaches of other nation states.

This is what we negotiate for, what we demand from our government in exchange for our loyalty and taxes. Alarm bells should ring when governments fail to defend their citizens.

Whatever may be said of US democracy a US citizen is under no misapprehension their government will ceaselessly strive to secure their sacrosanct freedoms should they be held in harms way in Iran and North Korea of all places. Retrieving fallen soldiers, leaving no one behind and defending their liberties in overseas situations are only some of the assurances the US government performs for their population. 

It still shames me to recall how our government behaved and treated Mr. Habib and Mr. Hicks. I hope I never forget how cruelly John Howard ignored them in their hours of unpardonable torture. With every catastrophe we need to be constantly reminded of the horrors, where we strayed, how easily we lost ourselves. I say ourselves because we are all Australians, together. The bombing of innocent Australians in Bali, demonstrates the notion that we as a whole bear the pain and suffering as a nation. What is done to one is done to all. I know empathy moves me when I try to imagine what they did to Mr. Habib and Mr. Hicks.  How could we have abandoned them?

This same country that now openly and proudly admits to torturing (water boarding) alleged terrorists is by their own judicial enquire adamant that they, the perpetrators of said abuse, are unaccountable to Geneva conventions and international war crimes courts. Condescension. Under the circumstances they are behaving rationally, protecting their interests. But this feels very wrong. Of course my suspicion levels are raised and my faith in democracy is disturbed.

I for one find justification based on the argument that national security is greater than individual security has little credibility. WMD, indeed! The number of lies our governments tell us and each other and this business of information classified off limits? One would think governments and their subalterns were laws unto themselves by the manner in which they patronize their subjects. The boy who cried wolf is all too familiar a story that I am often struck when an official begins a sentence, ‘In the interest of national security … blah, blah, (you know the spiel). I often wonder if they actually think I am that gullible.

Really, are we to trust implicitly in our governments? At what point does asking difficult questions and expecting truthful answers constitute treason? Is it illegal, for me to support human rights, for example?

Naturally, I am troubled when my trust in democracy and my government is conditioned by the principle of faith. So far I have been unimpressed with our record on climate reform, national security, and health reform to name a few. But aside from that what concerns me most, enough for me to spend hours composing this letter (not believing it will ever be read by you), is the point about Mr. Assange, our fellow Australian.

Please don’t take offense when I say that Mr. McClelland and you appear blatantly fawning to our US friends, and while you both and others seem quite prepared to throw our own to the wolves (metaphorically speaking) what is the gain if at the end of the day I lose confidence in my government to look after my family? 

If I can think this way then there are certainly others who will draw the same conclusion.

Additionally, how can I ignore habeas corpus when I know it was paid for with blood? It also happens to be an outstanding writ.

As there are real consequences to this farrago over WikiLeaks, and given that I suspect the motives of governments, does it not appear responsible to judge for myself whether or not the leaked information is important? Rather than put my head in the sand does it make me unAustralian to want access to information, which might affect my family, my world. What is my government so afraid of me knowing?

I believe it makes sense, and this is why I am so deeply affected when you uttered the words ‘grossly irresponsible’ and ‘illegal’ in the context of information that is alleged classified. I believe that analyzing and deconstructing the leaked information is a responsible act, surely a rational one, a strategy for survival. Many people will argue that WikiLeaks by circulating the documents was grossly responsible. I personally accept this interpretation.

In the background I hear Mr. McClelland scurrying to root out anything illegal he can nail Mr. Assange with. He like, Mr. Andrews appears to getting ahead of himself. But one thing for Mr. Andrews is his loyalty to Australia. It, at least, seemed genuine (despite his amnesia) whereas Mr. McClelland’s priorities, taken that he is Australia’s Attorney General, he seems rather obliging to the Americans and compliantly Amazonian and patently remiss of his paid duties to Australian citizens.

In closing, I am so unfazed by hyperbole, especially the fear mongering over WikiLeaks. Democracy isn’t likely to be toppled by openness and dialogue. Secrecy, however, is demonstrably poisonous and I imagine it is the real threat to reform.

People, I believe are desperate for strong leaders to sort out difficult problems. Conversely, leaders need support from their citizens to make significant advances, and that can only happen smoothly when people have trust in governments.

You will have your view on Mr. Assange. But in my view he has been open and responsible with the leaks. While his life is under undeniable threat I hope you reconsider and offer him a safe haven. To me Julian Assange is a very courageous person and I am proud to call him an Australian. It is my hope that you recognize his rights and give him protection.

Sincerely

Downunder the Weather

“WikiLeaks acting illegally, says Gillard.” smh.com.au.  2 Dec. 2010. http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/wikileaks-acting-illegally-says-gillard-20101202-18hb9.htmlgive

Arrogance: Climate Science vs Biblical Belief (Rep Shimkus)

Arrogance: having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities (Dictionary Version 2.1.3 (80.4)) 

The only arrogance I can see is with Rep. Jim Shimkus (Dumb). Surely, faith, when it obfuscates and denies truth it must be the epitome of arrogance. When faith is a champion of ignorance it should be clear that truth is the competition. Gaining control of the House Energy and Commerce Committee would be a major coup for deniers and carpetbaggers.

Who does Shimkus think he is to claim that his particular Christian faith is infallible. Let his Bible stand up to scrutiny, to irrefutable evidence. The proof is in belief and that is the problem. Truth that relies on faith is bound to be politically motivated. I'm not sure I trust one faith over another, and I think the best thing is to keep faiths out of the political process as much as possible.

Am I alone in thinking this guy is mad? His gall and contempt for humanity I can not fathom. What he stands for is dangerous and immoral. To do nothing is to assure that millions of people will die and millions more suffer.

I think the goal with global warming is to minimise as much as possible humanities contributions to warming, and to prepare ourselves for inevitable change. Let's be clear - Shimkus's God is the US greenback. And that's the only green he defends is the kind that handsomely lines his and his friends's pockets.

Also not appearing to be interested in truth, the other candidate for the Energy and Commerce Committee job, Rep. Barton (Dumber), is another who treats us like fools. On behalf of sanity I do apologise for this man.

Close your eyes and slowly count to ten. Maybe it will all go away.

TPM: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/11/new_house_climate_czar.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Talking-Points-Memo+%28Talking+Points+Memo%3A+by+Joshua+Micah+Marshall%29

One Word of Truth

Water, the most precious of all.

One hesitates to begin with, “I don’t want to sound alarmist, but…” But I will. No self-control, I wager. “Shout, shout” I order myself!  “Before the Siren’s exact their charm.”

If this is ever a “for the whom the bell tolls” moment this surely must be our wake up clang. For an international corporate coup d’état of Australian waterways is well upon us. If I hadn’t stumbled on this news article in the paper today I might have missed it altogether. Is it true? Are we so desperate that we have to sell our most precious birthright on the stock exchange?

Why? How is this possible that we failed to notice it happening? Who made it happen? Why do I feel angry?

This is no contest. Water is the most precious resource of all. Every living thing on this earth depends on it to survive. Tell me, what good should be more sacrosanct than public access to clean water and air?

How dare we disregard Bolivia’s story? At our peril, don’t begin to tell me it will never happen here. It is and it will escalate as long as we continue to remain naive and apathetic to our own highly publicised dry-bone continental supply. It just isn’t smart to trust that our governments are looking after our welfare when we have evidence, as this article demonstrates, to the contrary.

It is unfathomable to imagine we could simply surrender our most essential life-preserving constituent to overseas stakeholders. At its rudiment form corporations are cold-blooded abattoirs competing for earnings. For them profit is the only moral. If you don’t believe me do your own research, how they treat third world nations. Tell me, if you are not mortified by their exploitation and callousness for others. Look past the feigned rhetoric to their actions where greater truths are sure to be found in their alliances and conduct.

Water is too vital to claim ownership rights. It really belongs to no one or no thing. But since human kind insists on fingering every pie it can imagine we must ensure that it is shared at least fairly among all living things, entrusting with respect to scrutiny and rational courage.

References to Bolivia

http://www.cbc.ca/news/features/water/bolivia.html 

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/South_America/Bolivia_WaterWarVictory.html 

http://www.democracyctr.org/bolivia/investigations/water/

The Main Story

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/water-issues/thirsty-foreigners-soak-up-scarce-water-rights-20100903-14uev.html

On the Street: NO NEW COAL

photo taken from the Nature Conservation Council of NSW website

A small but enthusiastic group of Eartheists braved the chilled morning hours of July 6 and greeted Sydney business commuters on their way to work. The aim was to create public awareness of 2 new Coal power stations being proposed in NSW. Terrific! Some 800ish NSW citizens signed the petition which brings the total over 8000. The NSW government needs to hear a loud protest NO to NEW COAL.

What struck me was the number of people who expressed gratitude for what we were doing. There is support out there. People do care.

Together we shout "No Deal!" It just doesn't make sense to build more fossil fuelled power stations when we should be moving forward to renewable technologies. It is time to place our faith in human enterprise and ingenuity. NO NEW COAL. NO NEW COAL.

Many thanks to the Nature Conservation Council of NSW for organising the event.

Climate-gate: Under Exposed Hoax

I really don't know where to begin. Finally after a four month investigation Pennsylvania State University has given Michael Mann, one of the adjudged conspirators of data manipulation, the all clear on research misconduct.

While this announcement is most welcome for some reason it does not feel like a victory. Unforgivably, I can not erase the smug looks I imagine are still frozen to the faces of the climate denier's. Their malicious aim was to muddy Copenhagen. Derailment. Loss of ground, indeed, but it is better to be absolved of wrongdoing than be held to the firing wall. Not that deniers will be satisfied with this finding, they are unable to accept evidence unless it is exclusively theirs.

The fact is we should feel more secure about science, especially when it is scrutinised by peers.

I think it is fair to say the news coverage was hot when it first leaked. And milder when the all clear was given. I still believe the real story rests with the mainstream media. The bias is palpable. Whatever it is that bends them they are not giving it away.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/02/michael-mann-cleared
Pennsylvania State University noted Mann's "outstanding" work was widely recognised in science circles - discounting accusations of misconduct.

Thinking Like a Child

Thomas Friedman

While it feels slightly uncomfortable to draw attention to Thomas Friedman, the NYT's columnist, because I often find his views incompatible with my own, I am quite happy to bestow accolades to his excellent article which deals with the Gulf oil spill and Obama's opportunity to steer environmental policy toward renewable energy. In it he demonstrates optimism and compelling argument for common sense that we don't often find covered in mainstream media. If the children understand then why can't we? While it seems crass to capitalise on this tragedy I think one has to be resigned to mess, after all, disasters are ramifications of living in this universe. Whether they be natural or human-made, it makes sense to reduce the damage and learn how to survive future events that are surely bound to occur. Click on the link below to access the full text that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald, Tuesday, June 1, 2010. Here are a few bites of text which I heartily endorse.

".... the most important thing Obama can do is react to this spill as a child would - because it is precisely that simple gut reaction, repeated over and over, speech after speech, that could change our national conversation on energy...

I am glad the President passed healthcare for the nation. But healthy to do what? To go where? To grasp what dream? Answering those questions is the President's great opportunity here, but he has to think like a kid.

Kids get it. They ask: Why would we want to stay dependent on an energy source that could destroy so many birds, fish, beaches and ecosystems before the next generation has a chance to enjoy them? Why aren't we doing more to create clean power and energy efficiency when so many others, even China, are doing so?
And, Daddy, why can't you even mention the words "carbon tax", when the carbon we spill into the atmosphere every day is just as dangerous to our future as the crude oil that has been spilling into the Gulf?

That is what a child would want to know if he or she could vote. That is the well of aspiration for a game-change on energy that Obama can tap into. And he could even rip off BP for his moon shot motto: Let's get America "Beyond Petroleum". As you would say, Mr President, this is your time, this is your moment. Seize it. A disaster is an inexcusable thing to waste."

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/obamas-chance-to-salvage-some-good-from-the-oil-spill-20100601-wrod.html

Worst US Oil Spill Since Exxon Valdez

Here we go again. Another oil spill. another coast line, more dead species and the cost - not only to our planet, but to our economies. What gives?

Last year in the sea between Timor and Australia a similar offshore oil rig disaster spewed slick into the sea. The devastation covered measured at least 85 kilometres.

A month ago a Chinese freighter crew tried to save some time by straying off course through the Great Barrier Reef. From its ripped open hull on the coral floor, two tonnes of Texas tea poured into the world heritage treasure. The year before Queensland endured a 230 tonne mishap.

This latest fiasco off Louisiana has some way to go before it reaches the 35,000 tonnes loosed in the Exxon Valdez incident. Still, eighty miles of greasy, life killing sludge isn't easy to dismiss. Sooner or later it will wash ashore and the people will be wondering if it is really worth it to take that kind of risk.

At the end of April it is expected to arrive on prime coastal wetlands landing wave after wave of petroleum tribute. Out of sight, out of mind. In a measure to minimise damage authorities have burned off some surface oil. Polluting the air, apparently, is not good. I suppose there will be plenty of accusations to throw around and some political anxiety to expect when the people actually start shampooing sea animals and counting the dead when they wash up on the beaches.

Surely, there will be other future environmental-economic disasters to cope with. Some probably much worse in terms of negative impact. Just how many more catastrophes can we absorb before it gets too unmanageable? When will we say enough of this "drill, baby drill" oil roulette mentality and really change to earth friendlier energy infrastructures?

I still find it unfathomable why Obama gave his blessing to increased offshore drilling when the answer is to put our labour into making renewables a reality as quickly as possible.

Without being too optimistic it is quite possible that the answer my friend it is literally and metaphorically blowing in the wind. There are a number of available local sources of potential energy to tap into, waiting for us to work out how to make it work. Self-sufficiency means we do not have to invade other countries to ensure sufficient supply of energy.

Is it me... I just don't understand, do I?

Mt Kosciusko - My Repose

Looking out from a trail going to Mt Kosciusko, the highest mountain in Australia, one can get lost even in one's thought. For as far as can be seen with the naked eye, there is only rocks and tussocks of grasses. On closer inspection there are lichens, mosses, many different types of grasses, bushes, flowers, and footprints of animals by the rivulets. Walking off the alpine trail feels wrong like trespassing. I worry about the damage caused from my heavy footprint. In this sensitive habitat one feels awe and respect for life on this earth. Rough cold winds swirl through cloudy landscape where the wiliest of plants and animals fend survival.

As sometimes I find myself stopping and taking note of flowers, rocks and animals, perhaps Wordsworth felt the same when he jotted out his poems. Despite not concurring with his sentiment of romantic nature, but I do feel reverence in human-less environments. His words:

I hear

These waters, rolling from their mountain-springs

With a soft inland murmur. Once again

Do I behold these steep and lofty cliffs,

That on a wild secluded scene impress

Thoughts of more deep seclusion; and connect

The landscape with the quiet of the sky.

The day is come when I again repose

Lines composed a few miles above Tintern Abbey

Life is indeed fragile and beautiful. In mindful homage to my earth I am certain there is more at stake in this world than our comforts, alone.

Things I just don't get

Just when you think Obama does 'the principled' thing...

Tell me, what possible justification makes endangering our environment the right course of action when the responsible way forward is bleeding obvious? We must turn away from the independence of fossil fuels as quickly as possible before it is too late. Of course I know our world runs on it. But I just have to believe we can find a suitable solution that doesn't rely on putting crucial ecosystems at risk. There has to be respect, a way to live more harmoniously with our environment and each other.

Considering the repercussions that could eventuate from a significant environmental disaster, planning to drill off the US coast is a desperate act. All the money or power in the world isn't worth jeopardising our planet for. Last time I checked there was nowhere else to migrate to. Mission to Mars is still a fantasy. There are no other options. We either ruin where we live and destroy our future or change in order to survive. To me it is that simple. Terminate the source of what gives us life and the writing is clear; it's Jonestown and kool-aid again, only on a global scale.

I just can't get why so few people understand this.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-drilling31-2010mar31,0,4617559.story

Earth Hour - Expressing solidarity for our home

Someone's energy for thought
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/3/27/851624/-Going-Beyond-Earth-Hour

Lutz Retires from GM

Mr Lutz, Mr Lutz let bygones be bygones, eh? Do us a favour, please. In the interim between your next reincarnation and this fasten some metachlorian scruples and re-energise to the light side. Go with the force, Lutz Sciencebalker.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-business/gms-bob-lutz-to-retire-20100304-pjia.html

This is how religion does it

There is probably no state in the United States of America more Republican conservative than the Beehive state of Utah. The hive buzzes under the paternal eye of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints or the Mormons as they are more familiarly known as. According to a 2008 Pew report, just under 50% of its citizens go that way. The next closest religious affiliation belongs to the Catholics at 10%. Sixteen percent declare no affiliation.

Needless to say, the voice of the church is zealously endorsed by its majority practitioners and thus the politicians often vote in line with predominant Mormon beliefs. Political outcomes are popularly determined according to religious views expounded by the Mormon hierarchy. In this it would appear that the separation of church from state is a thinly veiled disguise. Undoubtedly the church leaders protect their vested interests through their suppliant disciples. In influencing the minds and hearts of sufficient numbers of Utahn's the church is able to maintain its control of state affairs, and extend this leverage federally. Orin Hatch and Harry Reid are two Mormon senators who have high political profiles. More substantially the church membership prodigiously stretches across all the states, and Mormons are motivated voters. In fairness the church like many religious organisations seeks to shape wider community/political outcomes according to their tenets.

For example, Mormon church leaders played a significant role in enabling California's Proposition 8 legislature to restrict the definition of marriage to heterosexual couples only. The threat of gay marriages being legalised in California was abhorrent to them and had to be stopped. They coordinated huge financial support to help garner the proposition by a narrow majority 52.24%.

Finally, we come to the issue of environment and the opposition to global warming. How does Utah vote on this issue? By now it should be obvious. It votes according to what they hear from the pulpit.

I happen to know a number of devout Mormons and pretty well all of them express the same mantra as does the Mormon entertainer Glenn Beck. They do not believe global warming is man-made. In fact to them it is a mighty international conspiracy or hoax. They know all this you see because god speaks directly to them. From this superior vantage point the end of days is nigh, Jesus in his wrath will return and eventually burn the earth, cleansing it of iniquity by napalm and then restart the earth all over again in a pure celestial form. Global warming runs according to prophecy along with the unleashing of Satan and his apocalyptic horsemen who are apparently whipping the earth into a maelstrom. In this scenario, in the grand scheme of things, global warming makes small potatoes.

Personally, I just don't get it why they resist pitching in to help save the saveable planet. The solutions are manageable. If we could just work collectively then we are in with a chance to minimalise the damage. Instead these 'saviours of men' prefer to plunk their heads in the sand and trust in their vengeful god. As our flesh burns we might want to reflect on our mistake not to join them in salvation. They, in their insurance fire-proof garments, will be profoundly sorry we did not repent of our sins. But their tears will soon dry when our crispy skinned resurrected bodies are presented into a terrestrial or telestial world that is supposedly so wonderful we would all kill ourselves just to get there. Joe Smith's earth is not for the scorched billions. It belongs to god's few anti-social fanatics.

Hard to argue against this divine logic, I know.

Anyway, here is the result of where Utahn's stand on global warming. It rankles me to think the interests of people most likely to be disadvantaged by rising sea levels are not taken into account. Where do the Samaritan's keepers get off turning their backs on humanity. Utah's action to do nothing exposes more than just immorality. What a dull thinking lot these goody goodies are.

By gum it stinks in Salt Lake City.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/12/utah-climate-alarmists

This is a war

The polls have picked up on attitude shifts away from people believing in the scientific claims about global warming. The political failure of the Copenhagen Accord would have put people in despair mode, but the damage done over the Himalayan fiasco and the East Anglia scientists, in my opinion, has been nothing short of catastrophic for the global warming movement. I have said as much in an earlier post.

But I keep coming back to it because it never goes away, and like Chicken Little (depending on the version one reads) the most endearing feature of the story is that the fox is the one to watch. While the farmyard is all in a buzz Foxy Loxy is secretly licking his chops.

Let's be clear the pedestrian cynic is not FL. Within a margin of error, they are simply the masses, running around drinking TEA behaving exactly as they are programmed to do. I reckon it would have to be someone or some organisation or a number of organisations which stands to benefit most directly or indirectly for it to be worth all the trouble. The stakes are too high to be playing climate roulette unless there was a buck in it. If only we could identify the real source which moves the media's hands we might be getting somewhere.

The Guardian has been diligent in following the buzz. And I don't really have an issue with their approach. We need transparency even if it appears to muddy the works. We need to investigate deeper behind the story.

Where are these attacks coming from? I read somewhere that the Chinese government was the hacker agent behind the exposed mail fraud. Then in another news article I read that the hacking only went through China to throw on a scent and make it appear the Chinese were involved. Of course there are a number of plausible parties with vested interests in controlling the debate, but in the end I'm pretty sure only conspiracy theories will surface? In any case the damage is done and it is unlikely the true architect(s) will come forth. I just wish the journalists would cover the source angle. Then again I best not hold my breath waiting for a miracle.

My hope is that the mud sinks to the bottom soon. We need clarity if we are going to upend the damage. Honesty is the best tact, perhaps the only one as well. This is a war against the earth and we must not lose sight of that fact.

How it stood December 2009

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8396512.stm

How it looks now

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/01/27/climate.report.america.trust/index.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/07/climate-change-science-public-trust

About the Massachusetts GOP victory

There is no doubt this event is tragic for the world. It portends of more aftershocks on the way.

The first thing the Americans can do is kiss universal health care goodbye and caress the stained hands of those corporations which have enslaved them forever. The rest of the world can expect more of the same from the warmongers and idiots when it comes to fixing global issues. It's time to put all the dreams on hold and go back to gardening. Yes, I can!

The great hope that rested on Obama is moot. And this definitely hurts on so many levels, I have to say. To be honest I had high hopes he was the person to take us forward. But instead I feel like I have been betrayed by his actions. I don't want to make excuses for him but he certainly didn't get any help from his party. Those feeble representatives bring new meaning to the notion that we ourselves are often our worst enemy. If Democrats are patent at one thing it is losing the un-losable victory.

On the other hand one has to admire the other side for knocking the wind out of YES WE CAN!

Of course tomorrow will show up and give us another day to get back into it. Definitely what happened sucks, and giving up would be so easy given the state of my cynicism. But, what else is there to do? Hi Ho, Hi Ho.

It's the Solar Flares, Stupid

Lutz be careful not to say anything stupid.

According to the man himself cars do not contribute to CO2 global warming as much as solar flares do. Yes, the majority of respected scientists have made a serious error in attributing the scale of human activities to global warming.

Amazingly, Lutz, GM's CEO, knows a thing or two about how to interpret scientific data, Thanks to his superior knowledge about how the earth works we can drive our cars with utter contempt for the 'crock of shit' 'ers who have taken us down the proverbial garden path.

Well done, Lutz. I feel a whole lot better now knowing the sun is the culprit. Someone call up Bruce Willis. It's time we nuked the sun and stopped this charade. Long live the SUV!

I wonder why.

http://smh.drive.com.au/motor-news/global-warming-dont-blame-the-car-20100121-mmry.html

Bruce Newton: "I am not going to give a speech on this because everytime I do I get in trouble," Lutz said, then immediately began explaining his views."

Bob Lutz takes the first foilist award for 2010. Congrats!

That darn energy bill!

I don't know why but I have always feel trepidation when I open my electricity and gas bills. My heart unfailingly stops beating as my eye races to see the money I will have to pay. When I do so I should sit down. Obviously, the momentary loss of blood flow presses me to feel light-headed. With the huge increases in energy charges these days I should probably lie flat and organise a heart specialist on standby. It is getting that bad.

As expected energy costs go up. But what grates me is that my household energy charges seem to be going up more than any other expense. In two quarters my bill has jumped more than 100 dollars, and percentage-wise this increase is much more than groceries and other essentials, which are also sky rocketing. It just seems disproportionate. Something seems awry about the CPI bundle the government is calculating. Seriously.

By the way this isn't a rant about my bill. I am not that unreasonable to expect a free ride when it comes to energy. I am aware of the costs and the benefits that come from usage.

Where I want to draw this post is to the decision I have recently made to portion part of my payments to renewable energy. It may seem meagre but 20% of my bill will now go to the renewable energy sector. Yes, I know this commitment is lean and it looks hypocritical considering my strong views and all.

Unfortunately the other 80% will still end up in the hands of the dirty coal industry.

But, the choice was easy to make, after all I support renewable industries. The difficult part was trying to settle on the amount I could afford to shell out.

I don't know what it is like elsewhere but here in Australia there appears hardly an incentive to switch to green energy. Considering the undeniable truth about fossil fuel's life span I don't understand why our governments are dragging their feet on policy direction. Their greenish rhetoric seldom gets marshalled into substantive action and their support for coal appears undiminished, in fact flourishing. Of course, politically, there are many reasons why governments are reluctant to make big difficult decisions. But they will have to make them sooner hopefully than later. I think people want our governments to be courageous and make the wise decision to do what is more responsible. Let go of coal.

In order for me to choose green energy I have to shoulder a higher premium amount under a 2 year contract. As a conscientious responsible citizen I want to make a substantial contribution even when it means paying for something more than what it costs under coal technology. I wish I could afford more, however, this is not financially possible without greater sacrifice on other necessities.

It is this business of deadlines that worries me, 2012, 2015, 2020, and 2050. For the sake of our children's future our governments have to lead with greater commitment and help us move toward the changes that have no alternative but to be made quick smart.

The Problem with Being Human

Some months ago we were shocked to learn that scientists from the University of East Anglia had fudged the data linked to global warming. It must have been a satisfying gloat for sceptics. I remembered at the time resisting the urge to take the news seriously. Just another apologist beat up I thought.

Personally, I didn't have an issue with the way media headlined the fraud. It certainly made high profile mockery of those particular academics, and frankly, if they tampered with the data then they deserved a roasting. Everything especially science must be held up to scrutiny. Put it down to human frailty, I suppose.

The hoax news conceivably threw advocates of global warming into a spin as it did me. I have to say for a moment I felt doubt. I recovered. My big question was about the ramifications, how could the movement recover from that? All that effort gone into educating and persuading the unbelievers was decades in the making. The whole affair demonstrated how easily it could have all fallen apart.

Well, as we witnessed the hoax scare was merely a deviation, shortly corrected. Somehow we as humanity just move on. I suppose we just get tired and apathetic with some things. Overall, the hoax news didn't alter the major commitment to the global warming movement, certainly not as the sceptics would have wanted it to pan out. I think they would have liked to have scored a coup.

I will leave you with a link to an article posted by The Tech Online Edition which outlines some of the debate that has ensued. I think it is healthy to broaden the discourse.

In Wake of Climate Research Controversy, MIT Faculty Discuss Validity of Concerns:

http://tech.mit.edu/V129/N60/climate.html

Getting to know Global Warming

The debate on global warming is one I find most frustrating to appreciate from the view of a skeptic. I think we should be well past the discussion and well into the 'doing what we can with all our might' phase. While the media focuses on the diatribe I firmly believe they are doing us a disservice. The majority of scientists have overwhelmingly proven the earth is warming. Science clearly demonstrates that the earth's temperatures are rising proportionately to the output of human industry.

It is widely accepted that since the advent of the Industrial Revolution the earth has warmed significantly, and as our populations and consumption habits have soared so has our insatiable demand for energy increased. We are exponentially burning fossil fuel to our detriment, risking our own and our children's future in destroying the plants and animals which provide our sustenance. Consumption feeds us and also depletes us. An unbalanced planet, missing its essential species can not feed us. A violent world ravaged by weather can not protect us and it will see our demise from both spiralling war and disease.

I can understand the unwillingness of economic powerhouses to commit to reducing global warming especially when consensus is betrayed by mistrustfulness and their own selfish objectives. No one wants to lose their place. The problem with playing politics is time. There is no more time.

I don't understand skeptics. What is in it for them? I know some religious people are expecting the second coming, an end of this sinful world to be supplanted by a theocratic utopia, an image of heavenly peace and beauty. They portend global warming as largely prophesied and as a necessary condition of the revelation, horseman of the apocalypse and all that tripe. I hear their thinking, "why delay the inevitable. Bring on the pestilence. My unreserved faith in god is all the salvation I need, god will take care of everything." They have always pinned their hope to the after life, driven by delusions of grand mansions and vestal virgins that await the faithful.

Then there are those other fallacists who live purely by economics. How wrong are these people? Are they so myopic that they confuse burning lethal energy as profit. What profit is there in values that perpetuate materiality at the expense of peace or happiness? Where is the good in misery, starvation, and slavery.

These are surely the signs of the monster, capitalism. What a wonderful world it pretends to be for those who are strong enough to survive with money and power. After the slaves are gone who will pay the taxes? Unless for money sake, I can not fathom the arguments which allay renewable energies over coal and nuclear.

Eventually, we must put our dynamism into renewables. So why not get started now in a big way instead of being so superficial about actually doing something we know is the right action? Surely one thing humanity can do well is rise to a challenge.

My voice is all I have to add to a chorus of people who believe whether we are late or not we must act to preserve our beautiful earth.